[Frank Stearns]

"William Sommerwerck" writes:

I think one can go less wrong with too few mics than with too
many. Of course if you placed too many spot mics, you just
turn some down. If you placed too few, you're sorta screwed.

Let me briefly take the side of the "multi-mic perverts". Except for
binaural and Ambisonic recording, mics do not "hear" the way humans do.
There is no guarantee that a coincident or semi-coincident pair, placed at a
"good-sounding" spot in a hall, will produce a satisfactory (let alone
satisfying) recording. The only thing guaranteed is that you'll have an
acoustically "coherent" recording, whatever its virtues or demerits.

To view that argument from the opposite perspective... if you're regularly
recording a particular group in a particular venue, and the venue has "good"
sound, there is /no excuse/ for multi-miking.

I never heard a live concert until I started working at Barclay Recording.
It took me at least a year before my ears became "unclogged" and I started
preferring live to reproduced sound. (I could spend several hundred words
discussing the musical and psychological ramifications of /that/.) It is my
"conversion" that partly explains why I am so adamant about simple miking.


Good points. I've preached for years that every engineer - regardless of genre -
should *at least* once a month get to a live, acoustic event. Could be a chamber
orchestra, symphony, choral, a recital of some kind -- and "calibrate their ears.
(Oh, and for this mission, NO events allowed where a freakin' PA is used in any
form!)

We are indeed polluted with sound that's gone from a mic to a speaker with all the
crap in between. It's instructional and humbling to directly hear real sound now
and again.


That said, two-mic recordings rarely work, IMO.

One reason -- even with a "flawless" recording and reproduction system -- is the
"shoehorning" of a concert hall into a living room. The illusion breaks down, and we
need to use a little deception to pull it off.

So now we get to spots. 95% of my work is classical and acoustic music. I mount two
pairs on an Avenger stand -- one 17cm/110 degree ORTF with Gefell 940 hypers, the
other a pair of KM183s with diffraction spheres, 50 cm spacing, splayed up and out.

The 183s give an eerily accurate sense of image (space and depth), but it's a little
diffuse and sometimes things can get lost or lose luster. The ORTF is flat and "in
your face" by comparison, but it can "reach in" to the ensemble for a little more
presence when needed. The two work well together.

But I always spot vocal solos, and often the choir, thought it's tricky.
Instrumental clusters might also get spotted, depending on the setup and the music.


Where possible, I try to keep spots on straight lines between instrument/voice and
the main pairs.

They're generally panned to match the natural left/right, though sometimes the
soloist's performance location is a set-up convenience that doesn't fit the music
all that well, so I'll move them accordingly.

Time aligned, of course, with a little reverb (because the spot is unnaturally close
to the source). A little 1.5:1 compression as well at times, for the same reason.
(Though with trained classical voices I try to stay 3-5 feet back. Way less leakage
than you might think.)

Spot levels set not loud or unnaturally close. What we're doing is maintaining the
balance we *should* be hearing, not what the microphones, speakers, and playback
room fail to produce.

The result is that the illusion is maintained in many listening environments. Drop
the spots, or go to just one of the stereo pairs, say the very "spatially accurate"
50cm KM183, and the illusion largely falls apart or fails to convey the music.

With a little more production, a passable recording becomes something musically
memorable that engages the listener more with the music.

My $0.02. That's why I multi-mic.

Frank
Mobile Audio

PS - I do like Gabe Weiner's Schoeps KFM-6 recordings.... If I had to do only two
channels, that's the system I'd like to use.
--

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Nevertheless... It seems that recording engineers feel /obliged/ to use
multi-miking, compression, gating, etc -- every trick in their books -- not
because they're needed, but simply because they exist. (This is roughly the
equivalent of a writer using big words and fancy construction just to show
off.) I worked about six months at Rupert Neve, and the recording engineers
I met did nothing whatever to improve my respect for the recording industry.

In a lot of cases this is due to budgetary concerns as well. Sometimes you
just don't have the time to set a single pair up correctly because the
rehearsals are not in the same hall where the recording is made and there's
no time to properly listen to the room and orchestra. With current budgets
and current costs there are an increasing number of recordists who are forced
to wing it. When you're forced to wing it, sometimes you have to resort to
what otherwise might be considered less than optimal.

That goes double for tricks like spotting soloists and using outriggers on
a main pair. Yes, you can invariably do much better with proper positioning
and maybe changing the soloist position during the piece. But sometimes this
just requires too much time to get right and it's much cheaper to record
spots to multitrack and sort it out later.


That, and also performer variances, or room changes as the hall fills with an
audience. Spots/outriggers can save the day.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[William Sommerwerck]

Some of the time [musicians] are the worst of listeners because
they listen only to the music and not to the recording.

Musicians are stereotypically considered poor judges of sound reproduction,
because they rarely hear performances from the audience's perspective.

[William Sommerwerck]

So now we get to spots. 95% of my work is classical and acoustic
music. I mount two pairs on an Avenger stand -- one 17cm/110 degree
ORTF with Gefell 940 hypers, the other a pair of KM183s with diffraction
spheres, 50 cm spacing, splayed up and out.

What's a diffraction sphere? Do you mean a poor man's Kunstkopf? I've made
recordings with omni mics on either side of a Nerf ball!


But I always spot vocal solos, and often the choir, thought it's tricky.
Instrumental clusters might also get spotted, depending on the setup
and the music.

I /assume/ your spotting uses a stereo pair, not a single mono mic.


interesting stuff about spot-miking snipped

My $0.02. That's why I multi-mic.

At the risk of sounding like a hypocrite... There's a difference between
spotting to maintain balance, and promiscuously miking /everything/ with its
own mic.

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

At the risk of sounding like a hypocrite... There's a difference
between spotting to maintain balance, and promiscuously miking
/everything/ with its own mic.

OK... I'll bite. It seems to me that the objective in either approach is to
_create_ a balance that is more "pleasing" than what can be accomplished
with a single stereo pair. So, please explain: What is the difference
between those two approaches?

--
Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

At the risk of sounding like a hypocrite... There's a difference
between spotting to maintain balance, and promiscuously miking
/everything/ with its own mic.

OK... I'll bite. It seems to me that the objective in either approach is
to
_create_ a balance that is more "pleasing" than what can be accomplished
with a single stereo pair. So, please explain: What is the difference
between those two approaches?

The difference is that the use of discreet spotting /starts with/ the use of
a single pair, then "touches it up". Ordinary multi-miking ignores the use
of a single pair altogether.

The former is much more likely to maintain a sense of "spatial coherence",
and a proper sense of the hall's acoustics.

It's my belief -- and I'd like comments on this -- that most recordings
sound overly reverberant because they are heavily multi-miked, so the
producer adds reverb to make up for what multi-miking removed.

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:
The result is that the illusion is maintained in many listening environments. Drop
the spots, or go to just one of the stereo pairs, say the very "spatially accurate"
50cm KM183, and the illusion largely falls apart or fails to convey the music.

With a little more production, a passable recording becomes something musically
memorable that engages the listener more with the music.

My $0.02. That's why I multi-mic.

Right. But unless you're doing a live concert, you can improve on that
illusion by moving the performers around. Sometimes this can result in
some pretty weird configurations, with the string section moved around
and the soloists behind the conductor pointed toward the orchestra, but
I think in the end doing so winds up always being preferable in the long
run.

Live concerts are another matter altogether. Unfortunately they are both
the environment where spot mikes make the most sense, and the environment
where the spot mikes also need to be hidden from the audience.

PS - I do like Gabe Weiner's Schoeps KFM-6 recordings.... If I had to do only two
channels, that's the system I'd like to use.

Gabe and I played around a bit comparing his Schoeps sphere and my Jecklin
disc and I am pretty sure that the overall results between the two and
methods of use are very similar. You might want to try making a Jecklin
disc and trying it, if you like the sound of the sphere. The baffled omni
method has some advantages and disadvantages; the angle of acceptance is
very wide so you can get it up even forward of the conductor and get a good
stereo image. It also has very good and clean pickup from the rear which
allows you to put soloists or choirs behind the mike where they can see
the orchestra and the conductor's back. For live recordings you'd think
the rear pickup would result in more audience noise, but in fact because
the pair is moved so far forward, the audience noise is lower than with
most other methods. Baffled omnis are just a great choice in any good
sounding room although they can exaggerate room problems too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

At the risk of sounding like a hypocrite... There's a difference
between spotting to maintain balance, and promiscuously miking
/everything/ with its own mic.

OK... I'll bite. It seems to me that the objective in either approach is to
_create_ a balance that is more "pleasing" than what can be accomplished
with a single stereo pair. So, please explain: What is the difference
between those two approaches?

Whenever you spot something, you change the tone of that thing as well as
moving it forward in the stereo image.

When you spot everything (a la Enoch Light) you get recordings where all
the instruments are very forward and it sounds like you are sitting in
the front of the orchestra. In addition, the tonality is changed.

For example, spotting a string section will tend to make the strings very,
very bright, because the radiation pattern of a violin sends most of the
high frequencies straight out and up, to about the place where the mikes
need to be for best isolation. You can pull the mikes back or move
them down to improve the tone, but when you do that you lose isolation.
Alternatively you can use EQ to roll the top end off but then it sounds
like a Barry Manilow record. Instruments just sound different up close
than they do from a distance, and most instruments you encounter in the
orchestra are designed to be listened to from a distance.

An artificially-forward and artificially-bright recording might be just
the thing for TV broadcast or AM radio broadcast, though. It will not
sound natural but it will come across better on a 3" speaker.
--scott

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

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
Some of the time [musicians] are the worst of listeners
because they listen only to the music and not to the
recording.

Musicians are stereotypically considered poor judges of
sound reproduction, because they rarely hear performances
from the audience's perspective.

Here is a relevant AES paper that compares listening panels, one composed of
engineers and one composed of musicans:

http://mil.mcgill.ca/wp-content/pape...ctive_2009.pdf

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Some of the time [musicians] are the worst of listeners because
they listen only to the music and not to the recording.

Musicians are stereotypically considered poor judges of sound
reproduction, because they rarely hear performances from the
audience's perspective.

Please read what I actually wrote.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

So now we get to spots. 95% of my work is classical and acoustic
music. I mount two pairs on an Avenger stand -- one 17cm/110 degree
ORTF with Gefell 940 hypers, the other a pair of KM183s with
diffraction spheres, 50 cm spacing, splayed up and out.

What's a diffraction sphere? Do you mean a poor man's Kunstkopf? I've
made recordings with omni mics on either side of a Nerf ball!

A link to an image would indeed be helpful.

But I always spot vocal solos, and often the choir, thought it's
tricky. Instrumental clusters might also get spotted, depending on
the setup and the music.

I /assume/ your spotting uses a stereo pair, not a single mono mic.

That would create twice as many problems and void the overall principle of
always minizing the number of microphons deployed. The ploy is to let the
main pair determine approximate location and then fill in with volume late
in the haas window.

interesting stuff about spot-miking snipped

My $0.02. That's why I multi-mic.

At the risk of sounding like a hypocrite... There's a difference
between spotting to maintain balance,

Spotting is done to maintain direct to reflected ratio, ie. about focus,
often not about balance.

and promiscuously miking
/everything/ with its own mic.

The number of mics to deploy depends on the shortest required mic to object
distance and not on religion. I have succesfully used 24 feet on a soprano
or 1 foot, depending on surrounding noise sources. The objective for a spot
mic is not only to get the required sound, but also that it should not
destroy the overall balance by picking up too much bleed.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

At the risk of sounding like a hypocrite... There's a difference
between spotting to maintain balance, and promiscuously miking
/everything/ with its own mic.

OK... I'll bite. It seems to me that the objective in either
approach is to _create_ a balance that is more "pleasing" than what
can be accomplished with a single stereo pair. So, please explain:
What is the difference between those two approaches?

The difference is that the use of discreet spotting /starts with/ the
use of a single pair, then "touches it up". Ordinary multi-miking
ignores the use of a single pair altogether.

A very usable definition

The former is much more likely to maintain a sense of "spatial
coherence", and a proper sense of the hall's acoustics.

Yes. Some record the room and some only the individual sounds.

It's my belief -- and I'd like comments on this -- that most
recordings sound overly reverberant because they are heavily
multi-miked, so the producer adds reverb to make up for what
multi-miking removed.

You forgot to mention compression. The problem with close miking is that the
crest factor gets unnaturally large, track compression as well as track
reverb are the usable fixes.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

Some of the time [musicians] are the worst of listeners because
they listen only to the music and not to the recording.

Musicians are stereotypically considered poor judges of sound
reproduction, because they rarely hear performances from the
audience's perspective.

Please read what I actually wrote.

I was adding to your remark, rather than contradicting it. Both observations
are correct.

[Bill Graham]

Peter Larsen wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

Sometimes my trumpet playing friend and I play our horns along with
canned, or recorded music. This is impossible to do unless you are
devoting your entire attention to listening to the music. As soon as
your attention wanders, you make a mistake, or at least, the quality
of your innovation suffers. So, in this respect, I believe that
musicians make the best listeners.

Some of the time they are the worst of listeners because they listen
only to the music and not to the recording.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

This is certainly true in my case. In many instances, someone else has to
point out to me how poor the quality of a recording I have. The power of
beautiful music transcends most everything else....

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

So now we get to spots. 95% of my work is classical and acoustic
music. I mount two pairs on an Avenger stand -- one 17cm/110 degree
ORTF with Gefell 940 hypers, the other a pair of KM183s with
diffraction spheres, 50 cm spacing, splayed up and out.

What's a diffraction sphere? Do you mean a poor man's Kunstkopf? I've
made recordings with omni mics on either side of a Nerf ball!

A link to an image would indeed be helpful.

The diffraction sphere is a small ball that slides over an omni microphone
and makes it more omni. If you look inside the M-50 or at the original
Western Electric bowling ball, it is the same concept. It improves the
pattern at high frequencies.
--scott

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Some of the time [musicians] are the worst of listeners because
they listen only to the music and not to the recording.

Musicians are stereotypically considered poor judges of sound
reproduction, because they rarely hear performances from the
audience's perspective.

Please read what I actually wrote.

I was adding to your remark, rather than contradicting it. Both
observations are correct.

Ah, thanks!

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Peter Larsen wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:

So now we get to spots. 95% of my work is classical and acoustic
music. I mount two pairs on an Avenger stand -- one 17cm/110 degree
ORTF with Gefell 940 hypers, the other a pair of KM183s with
diffraction spheres, 50 cm spacing, splayed up and out.

What's a diffraction sphere? Do you mean a poor man's Kunstkopf?
I've made recordings with omni mics on either side of a Nerf ball!

A link to an image would indeed be helpful.

The diffraction sphere is a small ball that slides over an omni
microphone and makes it more omni. If you look inside the M-50 or at
the original Western Electric bowling ball, it is the same concept.
It improves the pattern at high frequencies.

What Neumann says - yes, I was too lazy to google at first, thank you for
prompting me to do it - is:

" The SBK 130 A sound diffraction sphere slips onto the
" KM 130, KM 131 (D) and KM 183 (D) pressure microphones.
" While sounds coming from the front-half space are
" emphasized by up to 2.5 dB between 2 kHz and 10 kHz,
" sounds arriving from the rear-half space are attenuated"
" by 2.5 dB max in the range above 5 kHz. Inner 22 mm.

In my world that would make it more cardioid, dpa also has such an implement
and suggest it used to obtain directionality and presence, just as Neumann.
But it also must widen and soften the druckstau (pressure build up) treble
boost and that can certainly be useful. To actually omni an omni in my
understanding requires nose cones.

A single web-page with both types of implemnts:

http://www.dpamicrophones.com/en/pro...g&category=146

I like 4006 with nose cones a lot, it maintains the rearward tonal balance
and my CK22's - while somewhat crude and with a strange treble freuquency
response around 10 kHz - have similar virtues, wonderful if you deploy them
either (too) close or for ambience.

--scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

At the risk of sounding like a hypocrite... There's a difference
between spotting to maintain balance, and promiscuously miking
/everything/ with its own mic.

OK... I'll bite. It seems to me that the objective in either
approach is to _create_ a balance that is more "pleasing" than what
can be accomplished with a single stereo pair. So, please explain:
What is the difference between those two approaches?

Whenever you spot something, you change the tone of that thing as
well as moving it forward in the stereo image.

When you spot everything (a la Enoch Light) you get recordings where
all the instruments are very forward and it sounds like you are
sitting in the front of the orchestra. In addition, the tonality is
changed.

For example, spotting a string section will tend to make the strings
very, very bright, because the radiation pattern of a violin sends
most of the high frequencies straight out and up, to about the place
where the mikes need to be for best isolation. You can pull the
mikes back or move
them down to improve the tone, but when you do that you lose
isolation. Alternatively you can use EQ to roll the top end off but
then it sounds like a Barry Manilow record. Instruments just sound
different up close than they do from a distance, and most instruments
you encounter in the orchestra are designed to be listened to from a
distance.

An artificially-forward and artificially-bright recording might be
just the thing for TV broadcast or AM radio broadcast, though. It
will not sound natural but it will come across better on a 3" speaker.

And, at the end of all this, is the intent _not_ to create a balance that is
more "pleasing" than what
can be accomplished with a single stereo pair? Otherwise, what is the
point? In short, I understand why spotting is done, and have done so myself.
But, I don't think I'm mistaken about the intent.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
So now we get to spots. 95% of my work is classical and
acoustic
music. I mount two pairs on an Avenger stand -- one
17cm/110 degree ORTF with Gefell 940 hypers, the other a
pair of KM183s with diffraction spheres, 50 cm spacing,
splayed up and out.

What's a diffraction sphere? Do you mean a poor man's
Kunstkopf? I've made recordings with omni mics on either
side of a Nerf ball!

He's speaking of the SBK130 diffraction sphere which is a tennis-ball sized
sphere that the slender body of a KM183 slips through. The diaphragm of the
KM183 becomes part of the surface of the sphere.

Here's a picture of the assembly of the two:

http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=c...ories&dbid=139

[William Sommerwerck]

Here is a relevant AES paper that compares listening panels,
one of engineers, one of musicans:

http://mil.mcgill.ca/wp-content/pape...ctive_2009.pdf

I liked the attitude of the testers -- they were more interested in seeing
what happened, than in trying to prove or disprove anything. It was
particularly interesting that the participants were asked to indicate how
difficult it was to make judgements.

The following verges on the frightening...

"Together, these findings suggest that the mastering process of music
productions should be adapted to take into consideration the common use of
mp3 or other compressed formats. Although the transmission rates of Internet
and the storage devices have greatly evolved since the introduction of mp3,
the use of compressed formats may continue in early future. This continual
need for compressed formats is enforced due to the restrictions of space,
time and cost to exchange large amounts of digital information. Furthermore,
J. Berger reported an informal study where young listeners preferred
compressed formats to CD quality [3]. Therefore, there is a need for
mastering processes specifically adapted to lossy compression."

It's not clear what the author means by "mastering processes", but those for
compressed formats would presumably involve some limitation or compromise.
Knowing the way most businesses put the bottom line first, you can be
reasonably certain the "mastering" for compressed formats will also be
applied to non-compressed formats.

The observation that "[some] young listeners preferred compressed formats to
CD quality" is also scary, scarier than blueberry pancakes. Which can be
really scary, kids.

By the way, MPEG stands for "Moving Pictures Experts Group", not "Motion
Pictures Experts Group".

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
At the risk of sounding like a hypocrite... There's a difference
between spotting to maintain balance, and promiscuously miking
/everything/ with its own mic.

OK... I'll bite. It seems to me that the objective in either
approach is to _create_ a balance that is more "pleasing" than what
can be accomplished with a single stereo pair. So, please explain:
What is the difference between those two approaches?

The difference is that the use of discreet spotting /starts with/ the
use of a single pair, then "touches it up". Ordinary multi-miking
ignores the use of a single pair altogether.

That's a new interpretation to me. I would have called using more than one
mic "ordinary multi-micing", with a stereo pair being one such multi-mic
arrangement. Using multiple mics without a stereo pair is a different
approach altogether, but IMO that doesn't change the intention of creating a
more pleasing balance, whether or not one actually succeeds in doing so.

The former is much more likely to maintain a sense of "spatial
coherence", and a proper sense of the hall's acoustics.

The simple way of putting it is, the more mics involved, the more issues
involved, and the more difficult it will be to achieve a natural sounding
spatial relationship between sources. Perhaps that's why some recordings
toss that spatial relationship from the outset?

It's my belief -- and I'd like comments on this -- that most
recordings sound overly reverberant because they are heavily
multi-miked, so the producer adds reverb to make up for what
multi-miking removed.

Of course, close micing removes the environmental reverberation, and if I
recall, there were at least two philosophies about handling this; one is to
leave it removed to allow the acoustics of the listening environment to
dominate, giving the impression that the sound sources are in the room with
you, and the other is as you've described above, either to create an
artificial environment or to approximate the original environment. I'd
speculate that the first philosophy may derive from the binaural recordings
that were prevalent in popular music of the late '50s and early '60s. The
multiple close mic techniques used for 24+ track recordings used a similar
"aural lexicon", e.g. interpretation of what instruments and spatial
relationships sound like "naturally". As people accepted that lexicon, it
became more difficult to sell them on the basic stereo pair (and other
single-point variants), leading to spotting being common in modern
recordings. But, IMO, both approaches alter the instrument sound and
environmental acoustics, and the intention of creating a more pleasing
balance is at the heart of either one.

--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

There are precious few recordings made since 1954 in stereo
which have NOT been "multi-miked" and "multi-tracked".
Indeed, more than one mike is multi by definition.

Not in terms of stereo. A coincident (or near-coincident) pair is considered
a "single" mic, as is an Ambisonic or binaural array. The issue is not so
much the number of mics, but the "simplicity" of the setup.


MLP and LS recordings were mostly multi-track, the only exception
in the case of MLP are those very few which were routinelytwo-track.
WCF thought less of these than of the multi-miked MLP recordings
and would make apologies for their inferior sound.

I don't understand what you're talking about. Do you consider a three-mic
stereo recording "multi-track"? I don't. Three spaced omnis don't give much
room for adjustment, which is the /point/ of multi-tracking.


The pinnacle of multi-trackness is, of course, Solti's Ring Cycle
for Decca, one of the greatest recordings ever made in the opinion
of music lovers, journalists, high fidelity critics, and audiophiles.

It's a great recording, but in terms of "realism" (it wasn't intended to be
"realistic", but to reflect Wagner's intent) it doesn't hold up to the best
modern recordings. On a related note... If you listen to the operas in the
order they were recorded -- R, S, G, W -- you'll hear a gradual decline in
sound quality as Culshaw & friends introduce more and more electronics into
the chain.


Yes, it is true, that multi-track recordings CAN sound unreal, with
instruments popping out of the woodwork. The pinnacle of such
recordings - Enoch Light? - was probably Decca's Phase Four series,
with Stokowski, no mean musician he, leading the band.

And they can also sound quite realistic. My friend Dr Barclay heavily
multimikes, but it's not immediately apparent, because he does it very well.
One of the tricks is to "time align" the mics.

The earliest Command recordings were made with a Blumlein pair. I don't have
time to explain this right now, but if you listen carefully you'll hear it.


Purist audiophiles (audiofools) insist upon the soundstage in their
listening room reproduce perfectly and in proportion all the musicians
in the space of the original recording. ARGH!!! Most listeners are
happy to ignore such niceties in favour of a reasonable likeness. Not
as hi fi, perhaps, but just fine to get the idea of what the music is
about and how the musicians were playing it.

The original soundstage /can/ be reporduced, either with binaural or
Ambisonic recording. Regardless, the issue isn't whether the soundstage is
rendered exactly, but to what extend the producer is needlessly (???) effing
around with the original sound. If you can't get an exact duplication, I'll
settle for the plausible illusion.

The better surround recordings give an excellent sense of actually being
present. If you heard one, well-reproduced, you'd probably change your mind
about a lot of things.


From 1954 through to the end of the Living Stereo and Living Presence
era such recordings were the joy of music lovers. Later, in the 1960s,
unmusical producers got hold of the multi-track equipment and all hell
broke loose, as we can see in recordings from the late 1960s and
1970s. Then digital sound, with its lower noise threshold and greater
bite (on CD as opposed to LP), revealed all these amateur recordings
for what they were.

I have no basic disagreement with that. But... Producers and engineers had
been messing with levels, EQ, and reverb long long before multi-track
recorders made it possible to "adjust" the sound to one's liking, ex post
facto. The RCA 7-channel optical recorder, introduced in the mid-30s, was
designed to permit such manipulation.


Latterly more modest miking seems to hold sway in the industry, with
many better producers preferring tube mike preamps, better digital
processors (DCS?), and greater attention to mike placement. The
results are satisfying, in my opinion, and fairly widespread
throughout the industry, including the majors. Polyhymnia survives
(from the remains of Philips Classics) because of the highly
professional product turned out by their engineers. Sure, Professor
Johnson turns out fine recordings for Reference Recordings, but
he isn't recording the finest musicians in the finest halls or even
the finest music.

This is sometimes referred to as the Holt Rule -- the better the performance
(or artists), the worse the sound, and vice-versa.

My view is that multi-ch SACD has finally forced engineers to recognize that
a recording is obliged to represent, to a greater or lesser degree, what one
actually hears in the concert hall. Combining a heavily multimiked orchestra
with separate channels of hall ambience can't possibly sound natural, and
producers/engineers know it.

Oddly, there are recordings that should have been (at least partly)
multimiked, but weren't. The Chandos "Omay Kayyam" is one of them.


Rather than dredging up Holt's comments from 40 years ago,
it would be far better to salute the best work being done today
to record the music we love. This, indeed, is my own personal
goal here and elsewhere.

J Gordon Holt was the first writer to create a magazine devoted to the
highest quality sound recording and reproduction. He deserves recognition
for this, especially as this article lays bare the bad recording practices
that are still in use.

But I agree that it also makes sense to praise good recordings. See my
separate "Recommended Recordings" post.

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould wrote:
And, at the end of all this, is the intent _not_ to create a balance that is
more "pleasing" than what
can be accomplished with a single stereo pair? Otherwise, what is the
point? In short, I understand why spotting is done, and have done so myself.
But, I don't think I'm mistaken about the intent.

Sometimes. Sometimes you spot so that you can get unnatural balances that
come across better on the radio. Sometimes you spot so you can get an
unnaturally forward sound and to eliminate phase imaging, which is a standard
technique for film soundtracks.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

The difference is that the use of discreet spotting /starts with/ the
use of a single pair, then "touches it up". Ordinary multi-miking
ignores the use of a single pair altogether.

That's a new interpretation to me. I would have called using more than one
mic "ordinary multi-micing", with a stereo pair being one such multi-mic
arrangement. Using multiple mics without a stereo pair is a different
approach altogether, but IMO that doesn't change the intention of creating
a
more pleasing balance, whether or not one actually succeeds in doing so.

The term "multi-miking" has never been applied to a stereo pair, three
spaced omnis, or simple surround arrays.

Though two or three mics are obviously "multi", that is not the common
meaning of the term.

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
The difference is that the use of discreet spotting /starts with/
the use of a single pair, then "touches it up". Ordinary
multi-miking ignores the use of a single pair altogether.

That's a new interpretation to me. I would have called using more
than one mic "ordinary multi-micing", with a stereo pair being one
such multi-mic arrangement. Using multiple mics without a stereo
pair is a different approach altogether, but IMO that doesn't change
the intention of creating a more pleasing balance, whether or not
one actually succeeds in doing so.

The term "multi-miking" has never been applied to a stereo pair, three
spaced omnis, or simple surround arrays.

Though two or three mics are obviously "multi", that is not the common
meaning of the term.

I understand the jargon, and I have no general issue with that any more than
refering to "miking" when the abbreviation for the device is a "mic", but
that doesn't address the intention of the two methodologies, which was the
basis of my original inquiry. If you still insist that there are differences
in the intent, I'd appreciate reading your explanation.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
And, at the end of all this, is the intent _not_ to create a balance
that is more "pleasing" than what
can be accomplished with a single stereo pair? Otherwise, what is
the point? In short, I understand why spotting is done, and have
done so myself. But, I don't think I'm mistaken about the intent.

Sometimes. Sometimes you spot so that you can get unnatural balances
that come across better on the radio. Sometimes you spot so you can
get an unnaturally forward sound and to eliminate phase imaging,
which is a standard technique for film soundtracks.

For successful projects, are not the results of such efforts "more pleasing"
than the alternatives? I can appreciate that an objective view would say
that "it depends", but it would seem to me that no one is intentionally
trying make things sound worse. ;-)

--
best regards,

Neil

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 09:12:27 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
The difference is that the use of discreet spotting /starts with/
the use of a single pair, then "touches it up". Ordinary
multi-miking ignores the use of a single pair altogether.

That's a new interpretation to me. I would have called using more
than one mic "ordinary multi-micing", with a stereo pair being one
such multi-mic arrangement. Using multiple mics without a stereo
pair is a different approach altogether, but IMO that doesn't change
the intention of creating a more pleasing balance, whether or not
one actually succeeds in doing so.

The term "multi-miking" has never been applied to a stereo pair, three
spaced omnis, or simple surround arrays.

Though two or three mics are obviously "multi", that is not the common
meaning of the term.

I understand the jargon, and I have no general issue with that any more than
refering to "miking" when the abbreviation for the device is a "mic", but
that doesn't address the intention of the two methodologies, which was the
basis of my original inquiry. If you still insist that there are differences
in the intent, I'd appreciate reading your explanation.

It must be miking. The syntax of the word micing requires a soft C. A
sort of plural form of mousing, if you like. Rodent control is not
what this is all about.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
And, at the end of all this, is the intent _not_ to create a balance
that is more "pleasing" than what
can be accomplished with a single stereo pair? Otherwise, what is
the point? In short, I understand why spotting is done, and have
done so myself. But, I don't think I'm mistaken about the intent.

Sometimes. Sometimes you spot so that you can get unnatural balances
that come across better on the radio. Sometimes you spot so you can
get an unnaturally forward sound and to eliminate phase imaging,
which is a standard technique for film soundtracks.

For successful projects, are not the results of such efforts "more pleasing"
than the alternatives? I can appreciate that an objective view would say
that "it depends", but it would seem to me that no one is intentionally
trying make things sound worse. ;-)

Perhaps, but I would consider those projects to be exceptions to the general
rule that the goal of such recordings is to reproduce as closely as possible
the concert experience.

Film soundtrack jobs aren't supposed to be accurate reproductions of
orchestras; if they were it would distract from the dialogue and effects
and the rest of the film. They aren't meant to be listened to in isolation.

If you _were_ to listen to them in isolation, I would personally think
the multimiking to result in a less pleasing effect.

But you normally don't, so the point is moot.
--scott


--
best regards,

Neil




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

[Kip Williams]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 09:12:27 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

I understand the jargon, and I have no general issue with that any more than
refering to "miking" when the abbreviation for the device is a "mic", but
that doesn't address the intention of the two methodologies, which was the
basis of my original inquiry. If you still insist that there are differences
in the intent, I'd appreciate reading your explanation.

It must be miking. The syntax of the word micing requires a soft C. A
sort of plural form of mousing, if you like. Rodent control is not
what this is all about.

"I hate you meeses to pieces!" — Mr. Jinx


Kip W

[John Wiser[_2_]]

"Kip Williams" wrote in message
...
Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 09:12:27 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

I understand the jargon, and I have no general issue with that any more
than
refering to "miking" when the abbreviation for the device is a "mic",
but
that doesn't address the intention of the two methodologies, which was
the
basis of my original inquiry. If you still insist that there are
differences
in the intent, I'd appreciate reading your explanation.

It must be miking. The syntax of the word micing requires a soft C. A
sort of plural form of mousing, if you like. Rodent control is not
what this is all about.

"I hate you meeses to pieces!" — Mr. Jinx

Tut. You are taking the micey out of them.

JDW

[William Sommerwerck]

The difference is that the use of discreet spotting /starts with/
the use of a single pair, then "touches it up". Ordinary
multi-miking ignores the use of a single pair altogether.

That's a new interpretation to me. I would have called using more
than one mic "ordinary multi-micing", with a stereo pair being one
such multi-mic arrangement. Using multiple mics without a stereo
pair is a different approach altogether, but IMO that doesn't change
the intention of creating a more pleasing balance, whether or not
one actually succeeds in doing so.

The term "multi-miking" has never been applied to a stereo pair, three
spaced omnis, or simple surround arrays.

Though two or three mics are obviously "multi", that is not the common
meaning of the term.

I understand the jargon, and I have no general issue with that any more
than
refering to "miking" when the abbreviation for the device is a "mic", but
that doesn't address the intention of the two methodologies, which was the
basis of my original inquiry. If you still insist that there are
differences
in the intent, I'd appreciate reading your explanation.

Using a "single" mic, supplemented by a few spot mics, produces a recording
that retains a coherent sense of the space in which the music was performed.
Multi-miking /everything/ largely discards that sense of space, in exchange
for the ability to micro-manage every detail of the sound. The difference in
"intent" should be clear.

The difference in sound is particularly audible over good headphones. A
multi-miked recording can sound almost "pointillistic", not unlike a
pasted-up collage of instruments and performers. In a single-point (or
spaced-omni) recording, the performers seem to occupy the same acoustic
space, and "relate" to it.

In 1977, Sheffield recorded the late William Malloch's arrangement of Bach's
"Art of Fuguing" in both single-point and multi-mic versions. "Morning
Edition" had a piece on it, and played both. I could easily hear the
difference on a cheap GE clock radio.

The single-point recording was issued on Sheffield CD SLS-502, which appears
to be out of print. Malloch's arrangement is a hoot; the disk is very much
worth looking for. (You might also be able to find the LP.) It -- and some
other Sheffield recordings -- should be reissued on SACD.

In fairness, this recording shows the balance problems that can occur with
single-point recordings. The percussion is too weak and distant, while the
woodwinds are too close.

[William Sommerwerck]

And, at the end of all this, is the intent _not_ to create a balance
that is more "pleasing" than what
can be accomplished with a single stereo pair? Otherwise, what is
the point? In short, I understand why spotting is done, and have
done so myself. But, I don't think I'm mistaken about the intent.

Sometimes. Sometimes you spot so that you can get unnatural balances
that come across better on the radio. Sometimes you spot so you can
get an unnaturally forward sound and to eliminate phase imaging,
which is a standard technique for film soundtracks.

For successful projects, are not the results of such efforts "more
pleasing"
than the alternatives? I can appreciate that an objective view would say
that "it depends", but it would seem to me that no one is intentionally
trying make things sound worse. ;-)

It is commonly said that "no one deliberately sets out to make a bad movie".
But that doesn't mean bad movies aren't made.

[William Sommerwerck]

Film soundtrack jobs aren't supposed to be accurate reproductions of
orchestras; if they were it would distract from the dialogue and effects
and the rest of the film. They aren't meant to be listened to in
isolation.

Not only that, but they're meant to be heard in an auditorium which, though
not particularly "live", will still introduce its own sound. So they don't
have a lot of ambience. (See below.)


If you _were_ to listen to them in isolation, I would personally
think the multimiking to result in a less pleasing effect.
But you normally don't, so the point is moot.

But soundtrack recordings /do/ present the sound in isolation. Because such
recordings are on the dry side, I find the multi-miking less objectionable.

[William Sommerwerck]

It must be miking. The syntax of the word micing requires
a soft C. A sort of plural form of mousing, if you like. Rodent
control is not what this is all about.

Though there is such a thing as a "mouse" for microphones.

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
The difference is that the use of discreet spotting /starts with/
the use of a single pair, then "touches it up". Ordinary
multi-miking ignores the use of a single pair altogether.

That's a new interpretation to me. I would have called using more
than one mic "ordinary multi-micing", with a stereo pair being one
such multi-mic arrangement. Using multiple mics without a stereo
pair is a different approach altogether, but IMO that doesn't
change the intention of creating a more pleasing balance, whether
or not one actually succeeds in doing so.

The term "multi-miking" has never been applied to a stereo pair,
three spaced omnis, or simple surround arrays.

Though two or three mics are obviously "multi", that is not the
common meaning of the term.

I understand the jargon, and I have no general issue with that any
more than refering to "miking" when the abbreviation for the device
is a "mic", but that doesn't address the intention of the two
methodologies, which was the basis of my original inquiry. If you
still insist that there are differences in the intent, I'd
appreciate reading your explanation.

Using a "single" mic, supplemented by a few spot mics, produces a
recording that retains a coherent sense of the space in which the
music was performed. Multi-miking /everything/ largely discards that
sense of space, in exchange for the ability to micro-manage every
detail of the sound. The difference in "intent" should be clear.

Spotting retains some aspects of the original ambience, but then
superimposes a different spatial representation of the spotted instruments
on top of that ambience. The end result sounds to me as unrealistic as any
other multi-mic methodology when compared to a live performance.

Living in the Greater Cleveland area since the mid '50s, I've had many
opportunities to hear the Cleveland Orchestra live at Severance Hall and
I've heard many recordings of the orchestra from then until now. To my ear,
none of the recordings sound like the live performances, although several of
the recordings are quite pleasant to listen to.

So, it seems to me that the intents are exactly the same; to produce a more
pleasing recording, and it's a matter of preference as to what that might
be.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Neil Gould wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil wrote:
And, at the end of all this, is the intent _not_ to create a balance
that is more "pleasing" than what
can be accomplished with a single stereo pair? Otherwise, what is
the point? In short, I understand why spotting is done, and have
done so myself. But, I don't think I'm mistaken about the intent.

Sometimes. Sometimes you spot so that you can get unnatural balances
that come across better on the radio. Sometimes you spot so you can
get an unnaturally forward sound and to eliminate phase imaging,
which is a standard technique for film soundtracks.

For successful projects, are not the results of such efforts "more pleasing"
than the alternatives? I can appreciate that an objective view would say
that "it depends", but it would seem to me that no one is intentionally
trying make things sound worse. ;-)



For some reason, I tend to "blame" Les Paul for what had to have
been some of the most forward sounding recordings at the time ( his
overdub pieces with Mary Ford ). But they sound great, and
the performances are so energetic that the production was just
icing.

--
Les Cargill

[Neil Gould]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 09:12:27 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
The difference is that the use of discreet spotting /starts with/
the use of a single pair, then "touches it up". Ordinary
multi-miking ignores the use of a single pair altogether.

That's a new interpretation to me. I would have called using more
than one mic "ordinary multi-micing", with a stereo pair being one
such multi-mic arrangement. Using multiple mics without a stereo
pair is a different approach altogether, but IMO that doesn't
change the intention of creating a more pleasing balance, whether
or not one actually succeeds in doing so.

The term "multi-miking" has never been applied to a stereo pair,
three spaced omnis, or simple surround arrays.

Though two or three mics are obviously "multi", that is not the
common meaning of the term.

I understand the jargon, and I have no general issue with that any
more than refering to "miking" when the abbreviation for the device
is a "mic", but that doesn't address the intention of the two
methodologies, which was the basis of my original inquiry. If you
still insist that there are differences in the intent, I'd
appreciate reading your explanation.

It must be miking. The syntax of the word micing requires a soft C. A
sort of plural form of mousing, if you like. Rodent control is not
what this is all about.

Nor is doing something to "Mike", whoever that may be. The lack of a "k" in
the root word is what qualifies 'miking' as jargon. ;-)

--
Neil


d

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
And, at the end of all this, is the intent _not_ to create a balance
that is more "pleasing" than what
can be accomplished with a single stereo pair? Otherwise, what is
the point? In short, I understand why spotting is done, and have
done so myself. But, I don't think I'm mistaken about the intent.

Sometimes. Sometimes you spot so that you can get unnatural balances
that come across better on the radio. Sometimes you spot so you can
get an unnaturally forward sound and to eliminate phase imaging,
which is a standard technique for film soundtracks.

For successful projects, are not the results of such efforts "more
pleasing"
than the alternatives? I can appreciate that an objective view would say
that "it depends", but it would seem to me that no one is intentionally
trying make things sound worse. ;-)

It is commonly said that "no one deliberately sets out to make a bad movie".
But that doesn't mean bad movies aren't made.





It is no longer possible to believe that. They ( whoever they is ) make
bad movies that win awards. That implies intent...

The movie business is cartelized, so conspiracies are not off the
table...

--
Les Cargill

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 12:06:25 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 09:12:27 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
The difference is that the use of discreet spotting /starts with/
the use of a single pair, then "touches it up". Ordinary
multi-miking ignores the use of a single pair altogether.

That's a new interpretation to me. I would have called using more
than one mic "ordinary multi-micing", with a stereo pair being one
such multi-mic arrangement. Using multiple mics without a stereo
pair is a different approach altogether, but IMO that doesn't
change the intention of creating a more pleasing balance, whether
or not one actually succeeds in doing so.

The term "multi-miking" has never been applied to a stereo pair,
three spaced omnis, or simple surround arrays.

Though two or three mics are obviously "multi", that is not the
common meaning of the term.

I understand the jargon, and I have no general issue with that any
more than refering to "miking" when the abbreviation for the device
is a "mic", but that doesn't address the intention of the two
methodologies, which was the basis of my original inquiry. If you
still insist that there are differences in the intent, I'd
appreciate reading your explanation.

It must be miking. The syntax of the word micing requires a soft C. A
sort of plural form of mousing, if you like. Rodent control is not
what this is all about.

Nor is doing something to "Mike", whoever that may be. The lack of a "k" in
the root word is what qualifies 'miking' as jargon. ;-)

It doesn't really qualify as a root word - it is strictly an
abbreviation. The root word is microphone. If you take that into
German it is Mikrofon, which provides a K very handily.

d

[Kip Williams]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 12:06:25 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

It must be miking. The syntax of the word micing requires a soft C. A
sort of plural form of mousing, if you like. Rodent control is not
what this is all about.

Nor is doing something to "Mike", whoever that may be. The lack of a "k" in
the root word is what qualifies 'miking' as jargon. ;-)

It doesn't really qualify as a root word - it is strictly an
abbreviation. The root word is microphone. If you take that into
German it is Mikrofon, which provides a K very handily.

In English, it's been referred to often as a mike, and written down that
way. "Mic" is a version I've seen more recently. Needless to say, the
order in which I saw them used is pretty much irrelevant, but I can at
least say that "mike" has been in use for decades. Also in other forms,
"to mike," "miked," etc.


Kip W