"How Hi-Fi Are Stereo Disks?"

[William Sommerwerck]

As I was cleaning up yesterday, I came across the first volume of "The
Stereophile", which J Gordon Holt re-published around 30 years ago. Gordon
was a great essayist, and one of my regrets is that he thought my writing
perfectly fine, and declined to help me improve it. (Yes, I know how selfish
that sounds.)

I took the book with me when I crawled into bed, and re-read "How Hi-Fi Are
Stereo Disks?", starting on page 3 of issue 8. Simply in terms of /writing/,
this is a piece that Montaigne would have given an eye tooth to have
authored. It's perfectly structured, and written in an elegantly simple
style.

Of course, what Gordon has to say about audio is the important thing. He
politely excoriates the recording industry for producing crappy-sounding
recordings that bear little or no relationship to live sound, which he holds
up as the reference standard.

It's significant that this was written in 1964, when multi-track tape
recorders were just coming in. But multi-channel recording had been common
for some time (it dates at least 30 years prior to this article), allowing
the producer to alter musical and tonal balance to produce what /he/ thinks
is appropriate, rather than leaving it to the conductor and musicians. *

Gordon also attacks the "If it sounds good, it is good" philosophy that
still haunts high-end reviewing.

I can't recommend this article too strongly. You can find it here...

http://www.stereophile.com/historical/864howhifi/index.html

Unfortunately, the sidebars "A Portrait of the Recording Engineer as a Nut",
"More Dope on Dynagroove", and best of all, Gordon's cartoon showing the
path of the audio signal from the mic to the cutting head -- which includes
the Automatic Dematrixing Obfuscator and Dynamic Subtlety Suppressor -- are
not included.

In 45 years, NOTHING HAS CHANGED, despite the fact that we now have
distribution media that place no meaningful limits on what can be recorded.
Despite what John Atkinson states, the majors still produce bad-sounding
multi-track recordings.

* Gordon notes that it is possible to make good multi-track recordings, if
the producer really cares about it. Most don't.


------------
"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
questions." -- Edwin Land

[pianomaven]

On Mar 10, 9:40*am, "William Sommerwerck" >
wrote:

> In 45 years, NOTHING HAS CHANGED, despite the fact that we now have
> distribution media that place no meaningful limits on what can be recorded.
> Despite what John Atkinson states, the majors still produce bad-sounding
> multi-track recordings.
>
> * Gordon notes that it is possible to make good multi-track recordings, if
> the producer really cares about it. Most don't.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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(sic!) turns out fine recordings for Reference Recordings, but
he isn't recording the finest musicians in the finest halls or even
the finest music.

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.

TD

[Kulin Remailer]

> In 45 years, NOTHING HAS CHANGED, despite the fact that we now have
> distribution media that place no meaningful limits on what can be
> recorded.

That's not entirely true. 45 years ago you could not spend (and I use that
term loosely) $6,500 (or whatever it was in that horrible thread) on a set
of speaker cables. Today you can. If that isn't progress then I don't know
what is. Thanks for the link btw.

[O]

In article >, Kulin Remailer
> wrote:

> > In 45 years, NOTHING HAS CHANGED, despite the fact that we now have
> > distribution media that place no meaningful limits on what can be
> > recorded.
>
> That's not entirely true. 45 years ago you could not spend (and I use that
> term loosely) $6,500 (or whatever it was in that horrible thread) on a set
> of speaker cables. Today you can. If that isn't progress then I don't know
> what is. Thanks for the link btw.
>
>
Hey, if you don't buy the expensive Monster digital cables to hook up
your HDTV the bits could leak out the wire and fall on the floor, at
least according to an expert I heard at BestBuy.

-Owen, mopping up bits.

[John Wiser[_2_]]

"O" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article >, Kulin Remailer
> > wrote:
>
>> > In 45 years, NOTHING HAS CHANGED, despite the fact that we now have
>> > distribution media that place no meaningful limits on what can be
>> > recorded.
>>
>> That's not entirely true. 45 years ago you could not spend (and I use
>> that
>> term loosely) $6,500 (or whatever it was in that horrible thread) on a
>> set
>> of speaker cables. Today you can. If that isn't progress then I don't
>> know
>> what is. Thanks for the link btw.
>>
>>
> Hey, if you don't buy the expensive Monster digital cables to hook up
> your HDTV the bits could leak out the wire and fall on the floor, at
> least according to an expert I heard at BestBuy.
>
> -Owen, mopping up bits.

Oh, those Best Buy experts!
I hear tell that BB is the Farm Team
for any number of RW thinktanks.

How do you get the bits
back in the cable, Owen?

JDW

[O]

In article >, John Wiser
> wrote:

> "O" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > In article >, Kulin Remailer
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> > In 45 years, NOTHING HAS CHANGED, despite the fact that we now have
> >> > distribution media that place no meaningful limits on what can be
> >> > recorded.
> >>
> >> That's not entirely true. 45 years ago you could not spend (and I use
> >> that
> >> term loosely) $6,500 (or whatever it was in that horrible thread) on a
> >> set
> >> of speaker cables. Today you can. If that isn't progress then I don't
> >> know
> >> what is. Thanks for the link btw.
> >>
> >>
> > Hey, if you don't buy the expensive Monster digital cables to hook up
> > your HDTV the bits could leak out the wire and fall on the floor, at
> > least according to an expert I heard at BestBuy.
> >
> > -Owen, mopping up bits.
>
> Oh, those Best Buy experts!
> I hear tell that BB is the Farm Team
> for any number of RW thinktanks.

Yes. Did you know you can see Russia
from several Best Buys?
>
> How do you get the bits
> back in the cable, Owen?

I poured them carefully in the speaker cone,
And set the Amplifier in "Reverse."

-Owen, Tomato Sauce and Vinegar will remove a stubborn bit-stain from
carpet. If that doesn't work, try blood.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> How do you get the bits back in the cable?

> I poured them carefully in the speaker cone, and set the
> amplifier in "reverse". Tomato sauce and vinegar will remove
> a stubborn bit-stain from carpet. If that doesn't work, try blood.

I'm reminded of a very, very, very old joke about grid-leak detectors.

[Scott Dorsey]

pianomaven > wrote:
>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.

But isn't that our job as engineers, to get as close as possible to
a perfect reproduction of the original space?

>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.

This is a good thing, but no matter how good we do, it is still possible to
do better.

But... I recently heard something on DG that didn't sound horrible so things
are at least improving.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

> But... I recently heard something on DG that didn't
> sound horrible so things are at least improving.

This morning I pulled out the recent Brahms disk with the Emerson Quartet
and Fleisher. This is a heavily multi-miked recording, with sound so colored
and dated it's unbelievable. It could have been made 45 years ago.

Who the hell multi-mikes a bleeping string quartet? If were a member of the
Emerson Quartet, I would consider it a gross insult to our musical skills.

[pianomaven]

On Mar 10, 1:40*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> pianomaven > wrote:
> >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.
>
> But isn't that our job as engineers, to get as close as possible to
> a perfect reproduction of the original space?

For some, yes.

For others, we would like to have a near perfect reproduction of the
music which we can replay in OUR space.

> >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.
>
> This is a good thing, but no matter how good we do, it is still possible to
> do better.

Naturally. Striving to do better is always a good thing.

> But... I recently heard something on DG that didn't sound horrible so things
> are at least improving.

I have heard hundreds of things on DG that didn't sound horrible.
Things are not as bad as you suggest.

TD

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message

> It's significant that this was written in 1964, when
> multi-track tape recorders were just coming in. But
> multi-channel recording had been common for some time (it
> dates at least 30 years prior to this article), allowing
> the producer to alter musical and tonal balance to
> produce what /he/ thinks is appropriate, rather than
> leaving it to the conductor and musicians. *

The idea that the conductor and/or the musicians are always the best people
to judge tonal balance is IME a myth.

The idea that you can position a mic or small collection of mics (e.g.
coincident pair) in one place and capture the sound of the group as heard by
a listener with the best seat in the house, or even any seat in the house is
also often a myth.

Anybody who has had the freedom to walk around all over the place during a
performance (such as being a recordist at a rehearsal) knows that there are
many, many different sonic perspectives on the sound of the group, of which
the conductor and musicans each have only one.

Many instrumentalists have severe hearing damage in one or both ears due to
the sound of their instrument. I'm not talking just rock and rollers doing
heavy metal. I'm talking about orchestral string players. The sound in the
paying seats is usually far from being ear damaging. If the SPL is so loud
at for the musican, its obviously different for the listeners. How can he
use the very loud sound he hears to best judge the overall balance of the
group in the paying seats?

Many small groups lack a dedicated conductor - they are directed by a member
of the group.

The idea that a group will always somehow play with the best balance
possible is also a myth. Given all the facts stated above, how can that be a
reasonable expectation?

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>> But... I recently heard something on DG that didn't
>> sound horrible so things are at least improving.
>
>This morning I pulled out the recent Brahms disk with the Emerson Quartet
>and Fleisher. This is a heavily multi-miked recording, with sound so colored
>and dated it's unbelievable. It could have been made 45 years ago.
>
>Who the hell multi-mikes a bleeping string quartet? If were a member of the
>Emerson Quartet, I would consider it a gross insult to our musical skills.

Somewhere I have a Philips quadrophonic recording with a close mike on each
one of the instruments, each panned one instrument to a corner. Absolutely
no sense of space. Screechy as hell, also.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

pianomaven > wrote:
>On Mar 10, 1:40=A0pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> But... I recently heard something on DG that didn't sound horrible so thi=
>ngs
>> are at least improving.
>
>I have heard hundreds of things on DG that didn't sound horrible.
>Things are not as bad as you suggest.

Things are pretty horrible.

Compare the 1950s von Karajan recordings of the Beethoven symphonies with
the 1980s recordings. It's shocking how much more natural the earlier set
was.... in the newer recording you'll have one instrument playing a little
part and the engineer will pull up the spot mike on that instrument and all
of a sudden the whole damn perspective of the orchestra changes. It's very
frustrating to listen to.
--scott

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> But... I recently heard something on DG that didn't
>> sound horrible so things are at least improving.

> This morning I pulled out the recent Brahms disk with the Emerson
> Quartet and Fleisher. This is a heavily multi-miked recording, with
> sound so colored and dated it's unbelievable. It could have been made
> 45 years ago.

> Who the hell multi-mikes a bleeping string quartet? If were a member
> of the Emerson Quartet, I would consider it a gross insult to our
> musical skills.

I have seen DR, Danish State Radio, do it with their outside broadcast van.
A room stand with a pair of 4006's and - I think - a pair of KM184's, a
close pair for the concert grand and one mic for each stringed cat would be
their setup for live chamber music, I think I have a picture of their setup
somewhere. That said it should however also be said that recording that many
tracks do not necessarily imply that all tracks are used.

Chamber musicians generally sem to commment positively on the sonic image as
captured by a single pair.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

> Chamber musicians generally sem to commment positively
> on the sonic image as captured by a single pair.

Four or five musicians should have no trouble setting their own balance.

I once recorded a string quartet in a living room, using a single mic
pair -- and I'd be a liar if I said it didn't come out the way I wanted. The
room's acoustics were hardly ideal for live music-making, and even though I
got the mics as close as I could, the sound was still a bit reverberant. But
at least it sounded more or less like live instruments -- not an acoustic
concoction.

[William Sommerwerck]

> Chamber musicians generally sem to commment positively
> on the sonic image as captured by a single pair.

Four or five musicians should have no trouble setting their own balance.

I once recorded a string quartet in a living room, using a single mic
pair -- and I'd be a liar if I said it didn't come out the way I wanted. The
room's acoustics were hardly ideal for live music-making, and even though I
got the mics as close as I could, the sound was still a bit reverberant. But
at least it sounded more or less like live instruments -- not an acoustic
concoction.

[Norman Schwartz]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> The idea that the conductor and/or the musicians are always the best
> people to judge tonal balance is IME a myth.
>
> The idea that you can position a mic or small collection of mics (e.g.
> coincident pair) in one place and capture the sound of the group as
> heard by a listener with the best seat in the house, or even any seat
> in the house is also often a myth.
>
> Many instrumentalists have severe hearing damage in one or both ears
> due to the sound of their instrument. I'm not talking just rock and
> rollers doing heavy metal. I'm talking about orchestral string
> players. The sound in the paying seats is usually far from being ear
> damaging. If the SPL is so loud at for the musican, its obviously
> different for the listeners. How can he use the very loud sound he
> hears to best judge the overall balance of the group in the paying
> seats?
> Many small groups lack a dedicated conductor - they are directed by a
> member of the group.
>
> The idea that a group will always somehow play with the best balance
> possible is also a myth. Given all the facts stated above, how can
> that be a reasonable expectation?

Very reasonable if one considers the DG recordings of the Orpheus Chamber
Orchestra performing in the SUNY Arts Center in Purchase, NY.

[Richard Kuschel]

On Mar 10, 7:40*am, "William Sommerwerck" >
wrote:
> As I was cleaning up yesterday, I came across the first volume of "The
> Stereophile", which J Gordon Holt re-published around 30 years ago. Gordon
> was a great essayist, and one of my regrets is that he thought my writing
> perfectly fine, and declined to help me improve it. (Yes, I know how selfish
> that sounds.)
>
> I took the book with me when I crawled into bed, and re-read "How Hi-Fi Are
> Stereo Disks?", starting on page 3 of issue 8. Simply in terms of /writing/,
> this is a piece that Montaigne would have given an eye tooth to have
> authored. It's perfectly structured, and written in an elegantly simple
> style.
>
> Of course, what Gordon has to say about audio is the important thing. He
> politely excoriates the recording industry for producing crappy-sounding
> recordings that bear little or no relationship to live sound, which he holds
> up as the reference standard.
>
> It's significant that this was written in 1964, when multi-track tape
> recorders were just coming in. But multi-channel recording had been common
> for some time (it dates at least 30 years prior to this article), allowing
> the producer to alter musical and tonal balance to produce what /he/ thinks
> is appropriate, rather than leaving it to the conductor and musicians. *
>
> Gordon also attacks the "If it sounds good, it is good" philosophy that
> still haunts high-end reviewing.
>
> I can't recommend this article too strongly. You can find it here...
>
> http://www.stereophile.com/historical/864howhifi/index.html
>
> Unfortunately, the sidebars "A Portrait of the Recording Engineer as a Nut",
> "More Dope on Dynagroove", and best of all, Gordon's cartoon showing the
> path of the audio signal from the mic to the cutting head -- which includes
> the Automatic Dematrixing Obfuscator and Dynamic Subtlety Suppressor -- are
> not included.
>
> In 45 years, NOTHING HAS CHANGED, despite the fact that we now have
> distribution media that place no meaningful limits on what can be recorded.
> Despite what John Atkinson states, the majors still produce bad-sounding
> multi-track recordings.
>
> * Gordon notes that it is possible to make good multi-track recordings, if
> the producer really cares about it. Most don't.
>
> ------------
> "We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
> questions." -- Edwin Land

In 2000 I attended the AES in LA .

There was an exhibit and lecture by Al Schmitt entitled "When Vinyl
Ruled"

It didn't have much to do with vinyl as the source material for the
lecture was 3 -Track1/2" tapes that were made from the originals only
a few weeks previously. The playback was through a 1958 tube board,
Macintosh amplifiers and Altec 604's. though the Altecs are known to
be "honky" t didn't seem to be that way on playback

The examples were stunning. Mancini's "Peter Gunn", some London
Symphony Orchestra, and even Old Blue Eyes were represented.

Having been very familiar with Peter Gunn in my youth, it became
apparent how much the sound had been veiled by the vinyl reproduction.
Rumble, rolled off high end and surface noise have never been my
favorite sounds. The playback was hair stand-up on the back of your
neck scary.

The best vinyl reproduction that I was aware of were the direct to
discs from Sheffield and the few half speed master vinyls out there
pressed carefully on virgin vinyl.

The worst were the K-Tel compilations with about 10 songs per side and
pressed on reground vinyl complete with paper labels.

After hearing the exhibit I felt that we hadn't made much progress in
40 years.

[PStamler]

In a class that I teach, we play two tracks from a DGG compilation of
Brahms works. One, Variations on a Theme by Haydn, was recorded in
1964, and sounds tonally beautiful, with a great sense of the space in
which the music was recorded. The second, from the Tragic Overture,
was recorded in 1977, heavily multimiked. It sounds atrocious: bright,
screechy strings, and the sound image is flat as a pancake, with no
hall sound at all.

Same ensemble, same hall, different recording techniques.

Peace,
Paul

[Mort]

PStamler wrote:
> In a class that I teach, we play two tracks from a DGG compilation of
> Brahms works. One, Variations on a Theme by Haydn, was recorded in
> 1964, and sounds tonally beautiful, with a great sense of the space in
> which the music was recorded. The second, from the Tragic Overture,
> was recorded in 1977, heavily multimiked. It sounds atrocious: bright,
> screechy strings, and the sound image is flat as a pancake, with no
> hall sound at all.
>
> Same ensemble, same hall, different recording techniques.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

To my ears, the best recordings are made with just 2 stereo mikes,
appropriately spread. That gives one the sound of a real concert as
heard in the first few rows of the orchestra seats. Many heavily and
closely miked studio recordings sound like a music factory, including
the rosin of the bow, the stomping of the piano pedals, and the
breathing/grunting of the artists. Music is not a cacophony of disparate
sounds, but rather a blending of the various orchestral sections.

In the old days, the recording engineers were musicians or music buffs,
not just computer people. They knew how important sound was, and the
early recordings (e.g. 1954-1960) still stand up today as remarkable.

Morton Linder

[William Sommerwerck]

> After hearing the exhibit I felt that we hadn't made
> much progress in 40 years.

Actually, we've made tremendous progress. The best modern recordings deliver
a level of fidelity not possible 40 years ago.

[Steve de Mena[_2_]]

On 3/10/11 12:45 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Somewhere I have a Philips quadrophonic recording with a close mike on each
> one of the instruments, each panned one instrument to a corner. Absolutely
> no sense of space. Screechy as hell, also.
> --scott

I didn't think Philips ever released quadraphonic recordings.

Steve

[Steve de Mena[_2_]]

On 3/10/11 12:48 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 1:40=A0pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>> But... I recently heard something on DG that didn't sound horrible so thi=
>> ngs
>>> are at least improving.
>>
>> I have heard hundreds of things on DG that didn't sound horrible.
>> Things are not as bad as you suggest.
>
> Things are pretty horrible.
>
> Compare the 1950s von Karajan recordings of the Beethoven symphonies with
> the 1980s recordings. It's shocking how much more natural the earlier set
> was.... in the newer recording you'll have one instrument playing a little
> part and the engineer

"the engineer will pull up the spot mike"

At who's request? Karajan?

> on that instrument and all
> of a sudden the whole damn perspective of the orchestra changes. It's very
> frustrating to listen to.
> --scott
>

Steve

[John Wiser[_2_]]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>> Chamber musicians generally se[e]m to comment positively
>> on the sonic image as captured by a single pair.
>
> Four or five musicians should have no trouble setting their own balance.
>
> I once recorded a string quartet in a living room, using a single mic
> pair -- and I'd be a liar if I said it didn't come out the way I wanted.
> The
> room's acoustics were hardly ideal for live music-making, and even though
> I
> got the mics as close as I could, the sound was still a bit reverberant.
> But
> at least it sounded more or less like live instruments -- not an acoustic
> concoction.
>
Experience with precisely this problem,
and long reading of your posts
on the subject of audio
lead me to believe
that your existence is based
entirely on wishful thinking.

....skeptical as all hell in Howells...

JDW

[pianomaven]

On Mar 10, 2:31*pm, "William Sommerwerck" >
wrote:
> > But... I recently heard something on DG that didn't
> > sound horrible so things are at least improving.
>
> This morning I pulled out the recent Brahms disk with the Emerson Quartet
> and Fleisher. This is a heavily multi-miked recording, with sound so colored
> and dated it's unbelievable. It could have been made 45 years ago.

Please, Bill, try not to generalize from the particular. Its total
lack of logic drives me batty.

Just say you don't like this recording. Basta.

TD

[pianomaven]

On Mar 10, 3:48*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> pianomaven > wrote:
> >On Mar 10, 1:40=A0pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >> But... I recently heard something on DG that didn't sound horrible so thi=
> >ngs
> >> are at least improving.
>
> >I have heard hundreds of things on DG that didn't sound horrible.
> >Things are not as bad as you suggest.
>
> Things are pretty horrible.
>
> Compare the 1950s von Karajan recordings of the Beethoven symphonies with
> the 1980s recordings. *It's shocking how much more natural the earlier set
> was.... in the newer recording you'll have one instrument playing a little
> part and the engineer will pull up the spot mike on that instrument and all
> of a sudden the whole damn perspective of the orchestra changes. *It's very
> frustrating to listen to.

Karajan playing at being Stokowski.

He also tested all his recordings on a cassette player before
approving them.
Shades of George Szell and his speakers under the sofa.

TD

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>
>I have seen DR, Danish State Radio, do it with their outside broadcast van.
>A room stand with a pair of 4006's and - I think - a pair of KM184's, a
>close pair for the concert grand and one mic for each stringed cat would be
>their setup for live chamber music, I think I have a picture of their setup
>somewhere. That said it should however also be said that recording that many
>tracks do not necessarily imply that all tracks are used.

Some valid argument can be made about spotmiking for radio in that it
allows recordings where everything is artificially forward, which can
be a good thing when listening to an AM radio in your car. Not a good
thing when listening at home under good conditions, though, but most
radio listeners today are not under good listening conditions.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[pianomaven]

On Mar 10, 7:10*pm, Steve de Mena > wrote:
> On 3/10/11 12:45 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > Somewhere I have a Philips quadrophonic recording with a close mike on each
> > one of the instruments, each panned one instrument to a corner. *Absolutely
> > no sense of space. *Screechy as hell, also.
> > --scott
>
> I didn't think Philips ever released quadraphonic recordings.

I think you're correct.

PENTATONE has reissued many recordings which the Philips engineers
recorded in quadaphonic sound but which had never been used. At least
that is my memory of things.

TD

[William Sommerwerck]

> Experience with precisely this problem, and long reading
> of your posts on the subject of audio lead me to believe
> that your existence is based entirely on wishful thinking.

> ...skeptical as all hell in Howells...

I'm not sure what you mean. But I'm an idealist. You don't do something
poorly simply because it's hard to do it well.

[William Sommerwerck]

>>> Somewhere I have a Philips quadrophonic recording with a close
>>> mike on each one of the instruments, each panned one instrument
>>> to a corner. Absolutely no sense of space. Screechy as hell, also.

>> I didn't think Philips ever released quadraphonic recordings.

> I think you're correct.
> PENTATONE has reissued many recordings which the Philips engineers
> recorded in quadaphonic sound but which had never been used. At least
> that is my memory of things.

Correct. Philips wasn't happy with the "matrix" systems and held off on
quad.

[[email protected]]

MOrton LInder writes:
limited to rec.audio.pro only, removed crosspost:
<snip quoted material>

>closely miked studio recordings sound like a music factory,
>including the rosin of the bow, the stomping of the piano pedals,
>and the breathing/grunting of the artists. Music is not a cacophony
>of disparate sounds, but rather a blending of the various
>orchestral sections.
>In the old days, the recording engineers were musicians or music
>buffs, not just computer people. They knew how important sound was,
>and the early recordings (e.g. 1954-1960) still stand up today as
>remarkable.

I would agree, and why sometimes I seem to be picking on
people, such as our recent thread on noise gates and their
uses.
MOst of these instruments we deal with were not made to be
listened to with one's ears right in the instrument, i.e.
you don't put your ear right up to a bass drum when it's
normally heard. Same with the bell of a horn.
IF that sound, which is unnatural is the desired sound then
you'll have to treat it to remove undesirable
characteristics.

MOst of the newer folks may be music buffs, but they're not
accustomed to thinking of music the way older folks are.
CLose mic'd recordings are what they're used to. everything
they hare is heard via either speakers and an amplifier or
close mic'd on stage, so that's a sound that is acceptable
to them, because it's what they're used to hearing and is
quite normal for them.


Regards,




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Harry Lavo]

"Norman Schwartz" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>> The idea that the conductor and/or the musicians are always the best
>> people to judge tonal balance is IME a myth.
>>
>> The idea that you can position a mic or small collection of mics (e.g.
>> coincident pair) in one place and capture the sound of the group as
>> heard by a listener with the best seat in the house, or even any seat
>> in the house is also often a myth.
>>
>> Many instrumentalists have severe hearing damage in one or both ears
>> due to the sound of their instrument. I'm not talking just rock and
>> rollers doing heavy metal. I'm talking about orchestral string
>> players. The sound in the paying seats is usually far from being ear
>> damaging. If the SPL is so loud at for the musican, its obviously
>> different for the listeners. How can he use the very loud sound he
>> hears to best judge the overall balance of the group in the paying
>> seats?
>> Many small groups lack a dedicated conductor - they are directed by a
>> member of the group.
>>
>> The idea that a group will always somehow play with the best balance
>> possible is also a myth. Given all the facts stated above, how can
>> that be a reasonable expectation?
>
> Very reasonable if one considers the DG recordings of the Orpheus Chamber
> Orchestra performing in the SUNY Arts Center in Purchase, NY.
Clearly Arny doesn't realize that with a group of professionals, playing
"conductorless" as does the Orpheus is a point of pride....and they work
their asses off on questions of balance. Conductorless chamber orchestras,
and chamber music in general, requires equisite nuanced balance between
instruments. Professional musicians put in the practice time and have the
listening and interpersonal skills to pull this off. Amateur groups or
players often do not. Arny records almost exclusively the latter, which
probably defines his beliefs (as ususual, stated as "fact").

[Ralph Barone]

In article >,
"William Sommerwerck" > wrote:

> >> How do you get the bits back in the cable?
>
> > I poured them carefully in the speaker cone, and set the
> > amplifier in "reverse". Tomato sauce and vinegar will remove
> > a stubborn bit-stain from carpet. If that doesn't work, try blood.
>
> I'm reminded of a very, very, very old joke about grid-leak detectors.

and Lord help you if the ether leaks out of your Ethernet cables.

[O]

In article <invalid-0910D3.19111310032011@shawnews>, Ralph Barone
> wrote:

> In article >,
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>
> > >> How do you get the bits back in the cable?
> >
> > > I poured them carefully in the speaker cone, and set the
> > > amplifier in "reverse". Tomato sauce and vinegar will remove
> > > a stubborn bit-stain from carpet. If that doesn't work, try blood.
> >
> > I'm reminded of a very, very, very old joke about grid-leak detectors.
>
> and Lord help you if the ether leaks out of your Ethernet cables.

You should see what came out of my fishnet stockings.

-Owen

[John Wiser[_2_]]

"O" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article <invalid-0910D3.19111310032011@shawnews>, Ralph Barone
> > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>>
>> > >> How do you get the bits back in the cable?
>> >
>> > > I poured them carefully in the speaker cone, and set the
>> > > amplifier in "reverse". Tomato sauce and vinegar will remove
>> > > a stubborn bit-stain from carpet. If that doesn't work, try blood.
>> >
>> > I'm reminded of a very, very, very old joke about grid-leak detectors.
>>
>> and Lord help you if the ether leaks out of your Ethernet cables.
>
> You should see what came out of my fishnet stockings.
>
Not to mention the processional from the monks' cloth-covered enclosure
faces...

JDW

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> But... I recently heard something on DG that didn't
>> sound horrible so things are at least improving.

> This morning I pulled out the recent Brahms disk with the Emerson
> Quartet and Fleisher. This is a heavily multi-miked recording, with
> sound so colored and dated it's unbelievable. It could have been made
> 45 years ago.

It quite possibly couldn't.

> Who the hell multi-mikes a bleeping string quartet? If were a member
> of the Emerson Quartet, I would consider it a gross insult to our
> musical skills.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
> message

>> .... allowing
>> the producer to alter musical and tonal balance to
>> produce what /he/ thinks is appropriate, rather than
>> leaving it to the conductor and musicians. ....

Actually that IS the producers job on behalf of the conductor and musicians
at the recording event and the first tool is moving ensemble and ensemble
members around.

> The idea that the conductor and/or the musicians are always the best
> people to judge tonal balance is IME a myth.

Not in mine, I am used to see conductors or bandmembers or associates of
some kind walk around the hall and listen during the on site rehearsal.

> The idea that you can position a mic or small collection of mics (e.g.
> coincident pair) in one place and capture the sound of the group as
> heard by a listener with the best seat in the house, or even any seat
> in the house is also often a myth.

The idea that you can purchase some equipment today and make good recordins
tomorrow is a myth, but once the skill is learned it is possible. Some
ensemble types do not benefit from a proper representation of how they
sounded in the actual acoustic space and need to have their sonic image
conveyed in a manner that is suitable for reproduction in a living room. A
standard oratorio ensemble - soloists, orchestra and choir - is such an
ensemble.

> Anybody who has had the freedom to walk around all over the place
> during a performance (such as being a recordist at a rehearsal) knows
> that there are many, many different sonic perspectives on the sound
> of the group, of which the conductor and musicans each have only one.

No, they take the walk around the room or ask someone to do it.

> Many instrumentalists have severe hearing damage in one or both ears
> due to the sound of their instrument.

Yes yes yes, and so have you and I and a lot of particípants here, hearing
damage is however about theshold, not about listening ability and basic
balance is a 200 to 800 Hz issue. Consequently the upper midrange and treble
threshold shifts are not generally the issue.

> I'm not talking just rock and
> rollers doing heavy metal. I'm talking about orchestral string
> players. The sound in the paying seats is usually far from being ear
> damaging. If the SPL is so loud at for the musican, its obviously
> different for the listeners.

That is a valid issue, but not about recording. Music generally does cause
hearing damage, how about classical cymbals and glockenspiel .... getting
the latter balanced well recently required that the glockenspiel including
part got an extra trip through the multiband.

> How can he use the very loud sound he
> hears to best judge the overall balance of the group in the paying
> seats?

This is also a valid issue, some musician genres tend to ask for a weird
balance such as vocalists and electrical guitar operators.

> Many small groups lack a dedicated conductor - they are directed by a
> member of the group.

That is a non-issue for multiple reasons stated above.

> The idea that a group will always somehow play with the best balance
> possible is also a myth. Given all the facts stated above, how can
> that be a reasonable expectation?

Musicians, ie. it usually works out very well indeed. As long as we stay in
the classical music world - my understanding is that this is the focus of
this thread, things tend to be performable.
Move on to jazz and it starts getting difficult to the degree that you may
need an ensemble amplified to be able to make a well balanced recording with
a single pair.

The event sound has to be well balanced for the recording to so be, you can
NOT fix it in the mix if it isn't because the room sound is not going to be
right. You can tweak the balance by a single digit number of decibel, but
not by a dual digit number of decibels.

It is a nice feeling when you have made a recording of a soloist and a large
organ and some, a few skilled recordists and highly skilled listeners, asks
where did you put the mic pair to get that wonderful clear balance.

What is different now compared to 40 years ago is the ease of moving tracks
around in time, properly used that is what makes it possible to emulate the
image of a single pair while using the number of microphones required to get
the direct-to-reflected ratio suitable for the genre.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Compare the 1950s von Karajan recordings of the Beethoven symphonies
> with the 1980s recordings. It's shocking how much more natural the
> earlier set was.... in the newer recording you'll have one instrument
> playing a little part and the engineer will pull up the spot mike on
> that instrument and all of a sudden the whole damn perspective of the
> orchestra changes. It's very frustrating to listen to.

Are you certain it is not an effect of track and/or overall compression
overdone?

> --scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message
>> Chamber musicians generally sem to commment positively
>> on the sonic image as captured by a single pair.
>
> Four or five musicians should have no trouble setting
> their own balance.
>
> I once recorded a string quartet in a living room, using
> a single mic
> pair -- and I'd be a liar if I said it didn't come out
> the way I wanted. The room's acoustics were hardly ideal
> for live music-making, and even though I got the mics as
> close as I could, the sound was still a bit reverberant.
> But at least it sounded more or less like live
> instruments -- not an acoustic concoction.

If you are referring to what one gets when the multi-micing runs amok, it
would be an electronic concoction. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message

>> Experience with precisely this problem, and long reading
>> of your posts on the subject of audio lead me to believe
>> that your existence is based entirely on wishful
>> thinking.

>> ...skeptical as all hell in Howells...

> I'm not sure what you mean. But I'm an idealist. You
> don't do something poorly simply because it's hard to do
> it well.

I think the point is that there's a lot to say for actual hands-on
experience.

I haven't seen the daily schedules, so I don't know exactly how many choir
recordings I'm going to do next week, but it will be between 50 and 100.

[Arny Krueger]

"Steve de Mena" > wrote in message

> On 3/10/11 12:48 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> > wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 1:40=A0pm, (Scott Dorsey)
>>> wrote:
>>>> But... I recently heard something on DG that didn't
>>>> sound horrible so thi= ngs are at least improving.
>>>
>>> I have heard hundreds of things on DG that didn't sound
>>> horrible. Things are not as bad as you suggest.
>>
>> Things are pretty horrible.
>>
>> Compare the 1950s von Karajan recordings of the
>> Beethoven symphonies with the 1980s recordings. It's
>> shocking how much more natural the earlier set was....
>> in the newer recording you'll have one instrument
>> playing a little part and the engineer
>
> "the engineer will pull up the spot mike"
>
> At who's request? Karajan?

I'd speculate that it was a producer who said that.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Compare the 1950s von Karajan recordings of the
>> Beethoven symphonies with the 1980s recordings. It's
>> shocking how much more natural the earlier set was....
>> in the newer recording you'll have one instrument
>> playing a little part and the engineer will pull up the
>> spot mike on that instrument and all of a sudden the
>> whole damn perspective of the orchestra changes. It's
>> very frustrating to listen to.
>
> Are you certain it is not an effect of track and/or
> overall compression overdone?

I've heard over-all compression do that. In the process of keeping levels
the same, gain for the overall orchestra goes down when a spot mic is
brought up.

So, its a combination of overdone mixing and overdone compression.

[Arny Krueger]

"PStamler" > wrote in message


> In a class that I teach, we play two tracks from a DGG
> compilation of Brahms works. One, Variations on a Theme
> by Haydn, was recorded in 1964, and sounds tonally
> beautiful, with a great sense of the space in which the
> music was recorded. The second, from the Tragic Overture,
> was recorded in 1977, heavily multimiked. It sounds
> atrocious: bright, screechy strings, and the sound image
> is flat as a pancake, with no hall sound at all.
>
> Same ensemble, same hall, different recording techniques.

I would argue that there would be a serious error in characterizing all
multimiced efforts as being like th 1977 recording.

I've always layered my multiple mics onto a coincident pair and used the
hall sound as a sort of a matrix for the spot micing.

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.

[td]

On Mar 10, 9:17*pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
> "Norman Schwartz" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> >> The idea that the conductor and/or the musicians are always the best
> >> people to judge tonal balance is IME a myth.
>
> >> The idea that you can position a mic or small collection of mics (e.g.
> >> coincident pair) in one place and capture the sound of the group as
> >> heard by a listener with the best seat in the house, or even any seat
> >> in the house is also often a myth.
>
> >> Many instrumentalists have severe hearing damage in one or both ears
> >> due to the sound of their instrument. I'm not talking just rock and
> >> rollers doing heavy metal. I'm talking about orchestral string
> >> players. The sound in the paying seats is usually far from being ear
> >> damaging. If the SPL is so loud at for the musican, its obviously
> >> different for the listeners. *How can he use the very loud sound he
> >> hears to best judge the overall balance of the group in the paying
> >> seats?
> >> Many small groups lack a dedicated conductor - they are directed by a
> >> member of the group.
>
> >> The idea that a group will always somehow play with the best balance
> >> possible is also a myth. Given all the facts stated above, how can
> >> that be a reasonable expectation?
>
> > Very reasonable if one considers the DG recordings of the Orpheus Chamber
> > Orchestra performing in the SUNY Arts Center in Purchase, NY.
>
> Clearly Arny doesn't realize that with a group of professionals, playing
> "conductorless" as does the Orpheus is a point of pride....and they work
> their asses off on questions of balance.

The history of I Musici is proof of this statement.

TD

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Norman Schwartz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>> The idea that the conductor and/or the musicians are
>>> always the best people to judge tonal balance is IME a
>>> myth. The idea that you can position a mic or small
>>> collection of mics (e.g. coincident pair) in one place
>>> and capture the sound of the group as heard by a
>>> listener with the best seat in the house, or even any
>>> seat in the house is also often a myth. Many instrumentalists have
>>> severe hearing damage in one
>>> or both ears due to the sound of their instrument. I'm
>>> not talking just rock and rollers doing heavy metal.
>>> I'm talking about orchestral string players. The sound
>>> in the paying seats is usually far from being ear
>>> damaging. If the SPL is so loud at for the musican, its
>>> obviously different for the listeners. How can he use
>>> the very loud sound he hears to best judge the overall
>>> balance of the group in the paying seats? Many small groups lack a
>>> dedicated conductor - they are
>>> directed by a member of the group.
>>>
>>> The idea that a group will always somehow play with the
>>> best balance possible is also a myth. Given all the
>>> facts stated above, how can that be a reasonable
>>> expectation?
>>
>> Very reasonable if one considers the DG recordings of
>> the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra performing in the SUNY
>> Arts Center in Purchase, NY.

> Clearly Arny doesn't realize that with a group of
> professionals, playing "conductorless" as does the
> Orpheus is a point of pride....and they work their asses
> off on questions of balance.

Clearly Harry lacks the people skills it takes to express his opinions
without unecessarily demeaning the people who have worked hard over the
years to help him right his technical wagon.

> Conductorless chamber
> orchestras, and chamber music in general, requires
> equisite nuanced balance between instruments.

You're wrong Harry. Its not just conductorless groups, its any group with a
dedicated conductor or not that should strive for balance between the
instruments.

However, most people don't listen with a bow in their hand, and they don't
listen from the conductor's podium. They sit in the paying seats and its all
different there.

I'm very thankful that the conductor I work with gets this, and often walks
back to the middle of the room to judge balance. Unfortunately he can't do
this during a performance, so he's still flying blind.

> Professional musicians put in the practice time and have
> the listening and interpersonal skills to pull this off.

I rarely have the luxury to work with professional musicans. I get the
feeling that obtaining a balanced recording with them is a lot easier than
the row I hoe.

> Amateur groups or players often do not.

Neither do most professional groups, such as those who work in most live
theatres.

How many stage orchestras are there for every symphony orchestra?

Thent here are the bands and orchestras that work with contemporary
vocalists. A third of the instrumentalists are playing electronic
instruments, a third are playing winds and strings that play relatively
softly, and the other third are playing loud instruments like brass and
percussion. Sonic balance only exists because of the guy at the mixing
board.

> Arny records
> almost exclusively the latter, which probably defines his
> beliefs (as ususual, stated as "fact").

Being professional doesn't change the laws of physics. To a certain degree,
professional orchestras kinda grandfather themselves into a balanced sound
by simply balancing off the numbers of musicans, and having enough musicians
that the laws of statistics come into play despite individual skills and
preferences.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote
>> in message
>
>>> .... allowing
>>> the producer to alter musical and tonal balance to
>>> produce what /he/ thinks is appropriate, rather than
>>> leaving it to the conductor and musicians. ....
>
> Actually that IS the producers job on behalf of the
> conductor and musicians at the recording event and the
> first tool is moving ensemble and ensemble members around.
>
>> The idea that the conductor and/or the musicians are
>> always the best people to judge tonal balance is IME a
>> myth.

> Not in mine, I am used to see conductors or bandmembers
> or associates of some kind walk around the hall and
> listen during the on site rehearsal.

I'm used to working in a more resources-constrained environment.

>> The idea that you can position a mic or small collection
>> of mics (e.g. coincident pair) in one place and capture
>> the sound of the group as heard by a listener with the
>> best seat in the house, or even any seat in the house is
>> also often a myth.

> The idea that you can purchase some equipment today and
> make good recordings tomorrow is a myth, but once the
> skill is learned it is possible.

No doubt.

> Some ensemble types do
> not benefit from a proper representation of how they
> sounded in the actual acoustic space and need to have
> their sonic image conveyed in a manner that is suitable
> for reproduction in a living room.

Exactly.

> A standard oratorio ensemble - soloists, orchestra and choir - is such an
> ensemble.

I'll take your word for it.

>> Anybody who has had the freedom to walk around all over
>> the place during a performance (such as being a
>> recordist at a rehearsal) knows that there are many,
>> many different sonic perspectives on the sound of the
>> group, of which the conductor and musicans each have
>> only one.

> No, they take the walk around the room or ask someone to
> do it.

I'm used to working in a far more resources-constrained environment. Those
people simply don't exist in my world.


>> Many instrumentalists have severe hearing damage in one
>> or both ears due to the sound of their instrument.

> Yes yes yes, and so have you and I and a lot of
> particípants here, hearing damage is however about
> theshold, not about listening ability and basic balance
> is a 200 to 800 Hz issue. Consequently the upper midrange
> and treble threshold shifts are not generally the issue.

All true but not my point.

>> I'm not talking just rock and
>> rollers doing heavy metal. I'm talking about orchestral
>> string players. The sound in the paying seats is usually
>> far from being ear damaging. If the SPL is so loud at
>> for the musican, its obviously different for the
>> listeners.

> That is a valid issue, but not about recording.

I'd say that but not *just* about recording.

> Music generally does cause hearing damage, how about classical
> cymbals and glockenspiel .... getting the latter balanced
> well recently required that the glockenspiel including
> part got an extra trip through the multiband.

I simply mic the percussion instruments that aren't particularly loud. I've
got to be fast on the faders when the auxilary percussionist swaps her
chimes for cymbals or a tambourine.

>> How can he use the very loud sound he
>> hears to best judge the overall balance of the group in
>> the paying seats?

> This is also a valid issue, some musician genres tend to
> ask for a weird balance such as vocalists and electrical
> guitar operators.

Well I wouldn't call it weird, I'd call it my constant challenge! ;-)

>> Many small groups lack a dedicated conductor - they are
>> directed by a member of the group.

> That is a non-issue for multiple reasons stated above.

I don't buy everything that has been said above, possibly partially because
I'm used to working in a far more resources-constrained environment.

>> The idea that a group will always somehow play with the
>> best balance possible is also a myth. Given all the
>> facts stated above, how can that be a reasonable
>> expectation?

> Musicians, ie. it usually works out very well indeed.

Usually has a lot to do with the environments you end up worknig in, and my
lot in life appears to be
working in a far more resources-constrained environment.

I started this gig doing church Karoke, playing CD backing tracks for live
vocalists. The volunteer instrumentalists did not show up in any particular
order - we had two guitars for a year before we had a steady drummer. But,
the show went on. Right now the instrumental group is over a dozen people
including up to 5 people playing strings, and its beginning to shape up. But
natural balance? Not a chance!

> As long as we stay in the classical music world - my
> understanding is that this is the focus of this thread,
> things tend to be performable.

I think you may be imposing your limited experiences on others.

> Move on to jazz and it starts getting difficult to the
> degree that you may need an ensemble amplified to be able
> to make a well balanced recording with a single pair.

I can tell that you are largely speculating.

> The event sound has to be well balanced for the recording
> to so be, you can NOT fix it in the mix if it isn't
> because the room sound is not going to be right.

I'm used to working in far a more resources-constrained environment, and
acceptable and enjoyable results can be obtained regardless of the event
sound. Many times the event sound is a major detriment to the reocording's
sound even when they are mixed quite separately.

> You can tweak the balance by a single digit number of decibel,
> but not by a dual digit number of decibels.

I will agree that the range of fader adjustments for acceptable balance is
often just a few dB. Getting there is a complex process and I frankly have
no idea of the range of electronic gains that I use to obtain a good
balance. I know that it ranges down to zero at the low end - some
instruments receive no intentional amplification at all. Obviously, an
electric guitar makes almost no sound on its own, so the gain must be up in
the dozens of dBs.

> It is a nice feeling when you have made a recording of a
> soloist and a large organ and some, a few skilled
> recordists and highly skilled listeners, asks where did
> you put the mic pair to get that wonderful clear balance.

I'm used to working in a far more resources-constrained environment. Skilled
recordists are few and far between and they generally work alone because
their skills are in such high demand.

[Arny Krueger]

"td" > wrote in message

> On Mar 10, 9:17 pm, "Harry Lavo" >
> wrote:
>> "Norman Schwartz" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>> The idea that the conductor and/or the musicians are
>>>> always the best people to judge tonal balance is IME a
>>>> myth.
>>
>>>> The idea that you can position a mic or small
>>>> collection of mics (e.g. coincident pair) in one place
>>>> and capture the sound of the group as heard by a
>>>> listener with the best seat in the house, or even any
>>>> seat in the house is also often a myth.
>>
>>>> Many instrumentalists have severe hearing damage in
>>>> one or both ears due to the sound of their instrument.
>>>> I'm not talking just rock and rollers doing heavy
>>>> metal. I'm talking about orchestral string players.
>>>> The sound in the paying seats is usually far from
>>>> being ear damaging. If the SPL is so loud at for the
>>>> musican, its obviously different for the listeners.
>>>> How can he use the very loud sound he hears to best
>>>> judge the overall balance of the group in the paying
>>>> seats?
>>>> Many small groups lack a dedicated conductor - they
>>>> are directed by a member of the group.
>>
>>>> The idea that a group will always somehow play with
>>>> the best balance possible is also a myth. Given all
>>>> the facts stated above, how can that be a reasonable
>>>> expectation?
>>
>>> Very reasonable if one considers the DG recordings of
>>> the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra performing in the SUNY
>>> Arts Center in Purchase, NY.
>>
>> Clearly Arny doesn't realize that with a group of
>> professionals, playing "conductorless" as does the
>> Orpheus is a point of pride....and they work their asses
>> off on questions of balance.

> The history of I Musici is proof of this statement.

A few exceptions do not disprove a relevant general rule.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message
>> After hearing the exhibit I felt that we hadn't made
>> much progress in 40 years.
>
> Actually, we've made tremendous progress. The best modern
> recordings deliver a level of fidelity not possible 40
> years ago.

And the worst modern recordings deliver a level of cacophony that was
probably not possible 40 years ago. One of the nice things about vinyl and
legacy analog tape is that their power bandwidth limitations kept people out
of places they should never go.

[Scott Dorsey]

Steve de Mena > wrote:
>On 3/10/11 12:48 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> > wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 1:40=A0pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>
>>>> But... I recently heard something on DG that didn't sound horrible so thi=
>>> ngs
>>>> are at least improving.
>>>
>>> I have heard hundreds of things on DG that didn't sound horrible.
>>> Things are not as bad as you suggest.
>>
>> Things are pretty horrible.
>>
>> Compare the 1950s von Karajan recordings of the Beethoven symphonies with
>> the 1980s recordings. It's shocking how much more natural the earlier set
>> was.... in the newer recording you'll have one instrument playing a little
>> part and the engineer
>
>"the engineer will pull up the spot mike"
>
>At who's request? Karajan?

I don't know, I wasn't there so I don't know what took place between the
producer, the engineers, and the conductor. In this case I am only an
innocent bystander, listening to the fiddles moving back and forth when
the horns play.

My experience, though, is that most of these decisions are made between
the producer and conductor.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>Correct. Philips wasn't happy with the "matrix" systems and held off on
>quad.

This was definitely a CD-4 recording, since it actually _does_ manage to
pan to the corners (which you can't really do with the matrix systems).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

>>> .... allowing
>>> the producer to alter musical and tonal balance to
>>> produce what /he/ thinks is appropriate, rather than
>>> leaving it to the conductor and musicians. ....

> Actually that IS the producers job on behalf of the conductor and
musicians
> at the recording event and the first tool is moving ensemble and ensemble
> members around.

But that isn't what we're talking about. It's fine to move the musicians
around in physical space. It's not so fine to do it with a panpot.


> What is different now compared to 40 years ago is the ease of moving
tracks
> around in time, properly used that is what makes it possible to emulate
the
> image of a single pair while using the number of microphones required to
get
> the direct-to-reflected ratio suitable for the genre.

This is what Dr Barclay has told me. However... time alignment is not going
to correct for /over-all/ acoustical error of recording from multiple
positions.

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Compare the 1950s von Karajan recordings of the Beethoven symphonies
>> with the 1980s recordings. It's shocking how much more natural the
>> earlier set was.... in the newer recording you'll have one instrument
>> playing a little part and the engineer will pull up the spot mike on
>> that instrument and all of a sudden the whole damn perspective of the
>> orchestra changes. It's very frustrating to listen to.
>
>Are you certain it is not an effect of track and/or overall compression
>overdone?

I am pretty sure. That's a different and even more annoying artifact that
DG seems exceedingly fond of....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

>>> Experience with precisely this problem, and long reading
>>> of your posts on the subject of audio lead me to believe
>>> that your existence is based entirely on wishful
>>> thinking.

>> I'm not sure what you mean. But I'm an idealist. You
>> don't do something poorly simply because it's hard to
>> do it well.

> I think the point is that there's a lot to say for actual hands-on
> experience.

No argument. The only orchestra I recorded on a regular basis was the
Chamber Orchestra of Philadelphia. I usually put the mics above and slightly
behind the conductor. (On the occasion William Smith conducted, the mics
fell on him. He thought it was funny. I didn't.)

JGH told me just how long it took to find a simple mic setup that
more-or-less accurately represented how a performing group sounded in a
particular hall (or was at least euphonic). When you don't have time for
experimentation, multi-miking can be the difference between getting a decent
recording and a mediocre one. On the other hand, getting the mic pair fairly
high up where it could "see" the full orchestra never produced a badly
balanced recording (that I recall). Remember, the louder instruments have
traditionally been placed towards the rear.

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.

Arny, I have an audiophile LP of autoharp music that shows the recording
session. The two players are seated next to each other, at about 45 degrees.
There are two separate mics -- NOT a stereo pair -- one on each autoharp,
and each player is wearing bleeping HEADPHONES! Do I need to say anything
else?

At least I went out and made recordings, which is something few reviewers,
and hardly any listeners, have ever done.

PS: I made Ambisonic recordings with a discrete-mic array. Played back
through an Ambisonic processor, the illusion came very close to that of
actually standing where the mics were. (You can even turn your head and look
"into" the hall or "at" performers behind you.) It /is/ possible -- and has
been for almost 40 years -- to /accurately/ record and play back the
positions of the performers and the hall acoustics.


> I haven't seen the daily schedules, so I don't know exactly how many choir
> recordings I'm going to do next week, but it will be between 50 and 100.

I assume you mean /month/.

[William Sommerwerck]

> 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.

[William Sommerwerck]

>>> After hearing the exhibit I felt that we hadn't made
>>> much progress in 40 years.

>> Actually, we've made tremendous progress. The best
>> modern recordings deliver a level of fidelity not possible
>> 40 years ago.

> And the worst modern recordings deliver a level of cacophony that
> was probably not possible 40 years ago. One of the nice things
> about vinyl and legacy analog tape is that their power-bandwidth
> limitations kept people out of places they should never go.

Could you give some examples?

[Randy Lane]

On Mar 10, 11:31*am, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:
> > But... I recently heard something on DG that didn't
> > sound horrible so things are at least improving.
>
> This morning I pulled out the recent Brahms disk with the Emerson Quartet
> and Fleisher. This is a heavily multi-miked recording, with sound so colored
> and dated it's unbelievable. It could have been made 45 years ago.
>
> Who the hell multi-mikes a bleeping string quartet? If were a member of the
> Emerson Quartet, I would consider it a gross insult to our musical skills..

Last night I listened to the Janacek Quartet recordings of Beethoven
op. 59 #2 from the Original Masters box. An early stereo-era
Westminster recording. And how joyful to hear each instrument in its
place, not blended together by some sloppy technician from multiple
tracks. At several moments I felt like I could sense the
instrumentalists talking to one another through their playing. Its a
shame many of these Original Masters boxes are disappearing so fast,
especially those (like this Janacek Quartet box) that are truly
"complete", representing all of the Universal recordings of an artist,
conductor, or ensemble.

But then this also beckons back to arguments about listening habits.
One of my high school English teachers emphatically insisted that
"nobody" just "listens" to music, but one is always doing somethng
else too. While I disagree with him, those of us who do frequently sit
in our sweet spot and block out all distractions to "just listen" to
the music, we are a very very very very small minority. The vast
majority play music while reading a periodical, talking with someone,
washing the dishes, or a hostful full of other tasks. The music is,
for the masses of consumers who make up most of the buyers the record
companies make their profits on, the background and not the occasion.
And that being the case, those who care about sound stage and ambience
are an almost inaudible voice to record compnay executives.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> Correct. Philips wasn't happy with the "matrix" systems and
>> held off on quad.

> This was definitely a CD-4 recording, since it actually _does_ manage to
> pan to the corners (which you can't really do with the matrix systems).

Apparently Philips wasn't happy with CD-4, nor were most of the people who
actually heard it.

A quadraphile acquaintance told me he heard a demo of CD-4 at JVC's Los
Angeles facilities before JVC (he said) compromised the system. He claimed
the sound was the best he'd ever heard, regardless of medium.

I could never get CD-4 to work without breakup and distortion, mostly
because I wasn't willing to invest in a proper CD-4 pickup. (When I switched
from a Dual to a "proper" turntable, I could no longer easily swap pickups.)

Actually, the matrix systems can produce audible hard pans to the corners --
if you have one of the better decoders.

[William Sommerwerck]

> Last night I listened to the Janacek Quartet recordings of Beethoven
op. 59 #2 from the Original Masters box. An early stereo-era
Westminster recording. And how joyful to hear each instrument in its
place, not blended together by some sloppy technician from multiple
tracks. At several moments I felt like I could sense the
instrumentalists talking to one another through their playing. Its a
shame many of these Original Masters boxes are disappearing so fast,
especially those (like this Janacek Quartet box) that are truly
"complete", representing all of the Universal recordings of an artist,
conductor, or ensemble.

> But then this also harkens back to arguments about listening habits.
One of my high school English teachers emphatically insisted that
"nobody" just "listens" to music, but one is always doing somethng
else too. While I disagree with him, those of us who do frequently sit
in our sweet spot and block out all distractions to "just listen" to
the music, we are a very very very very small minority. The vast
majority play music while reading a periodical, talking with someone,
washing the dishes, or a hostful full of other tasks. The music is,
for the masses of consumers who make up most of the buyers the record
companies make their profits on, the background and not the occasion.
And that being the case, those who care about sound stage and ambience
are an almost inaudible voice to record compnay executives.

Why make a high-quality product for people who don't care? Music is
something to be "consumed", not experience, enjoyed, or appreciated.

[Scott Dorsey]

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.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>>> Correct. Philips wasn't happy with the "matrix" systems and
>>> held off on quad.
>
>> This was definitely a CD-4 recording, since it actually _does_ manage to
>> pan to the corners (which you can't really do with the matrix systems).
>
>Apparently Philips wasn't happy with CD-4, nor were most of the people who
>actually heard it.

It sounds great the first time you play the record! Of course, the second
time you play the record, it doesn't sound quite so good... and by the time you
play it fifty times there is no separation in the rears whatsoever because
the subcarrier is totally wiped.

>A quadraphile acquaintance told me he heard a demo of CD-4 at JVC's Los
>Angeles facilities before JVC (he said) compromised the system. He claimed
>the sound was the best he'd ever heard, regardless of medium.
>
>I could never get CD-4 to work without breakup and distortion, mostly
>because I wasn't willing to invest in a proper CD-4 pickup. (When I switched
>from a Dual to a "proper" turntable, I could no longer easily swap pickups.)

Without the right cartridge, you'll wreck the subcarrier information on
the first play, really. It was an ingenious idea but awfully touchy for a
release format.

I actually have an SQ encoder sitting in the mastering rack if you ever
want to make a quad LP again....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message
>>>> Experience with precisely this problem, and long
>>>> reading of your posts on the subject of audio lead me
>>>> to believe that your existence is based entirely on
>>>> wishful thinking.
>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean. But I'm an idealist. You
>>> don't do something poorly simply because it's hard to
>>> do it well.
>
>> I think the point is that there's a lot to say for
>> actual hands-on experience.

> No argument. The only orchestra I recorded on a regular
> basis was the Chamber Orchestra of Philadelphia. I
> usually put the mics above and slightly behind the
> conductor. (On the occasion William Smith conducted, the
> mics fell on him. He thought it was funny. I didn't.)

There are a very limited number of opportunities to record *name*
orchestras.

There are plenty of opportunities to record people who like to play music.

> JGH told me just how long it took to find a simple mic
> setup that more-or-less accurately represented how a
> performing group sounded in a particular hall (or was at
> least euphonic).

Hmmm, 30 or so years ago we didn't have decent mic preamps selling on
virtually every street corner.

> When you don't have time for
> experimentation, multi-miking can be the difference
> between getting a decent recording and a mediocre one.

I find that multiple spot mics plus a good coincident pair recording via a
multitrack recorder is a neat way to delay making a lot of decisions until
you really have the time to experiment.

> On the other hand, getting the mic pair fairly high up where
> it could "see" the full orchestra never produced a badly
> balanced recording (that I recall). Remember, the louder
> instruments have traditionally been placed towards the
> rear.

Placing mics and speakers high facilitate following the 2:1 rule. The
counterpoint is that you often get a warmer recording by placing the mics
far closer to the floor.

> 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.

IME it all depends. While I absolutely don't get the paranoia about
multi-micing, I also don't get micing the overall sonic scene. The approach
and the tools depends on what you are recording.


> Arny, I have an audiophile LP of autoharp music that
> shows the recording session. The two players are seated
> next to each other, at about 45 degrees. There are two
> separate mics -- NOT a stereo pair -- one on each
> autoharp, and each player is wearing bleeping HEADPHONES!
> Do I need to say anything else?

So you're saying it was dual mono. IME audiophile recordings are all over
the map. Some are plainly wonderful recordings done by skilled craftsmen.
But I've also seen some overpriced drek with a impressive equipment list.

> At least I went out and made recordings, which is
> something few reviewers, and hardly any listeners, have
> ever done.

Hence my comments about hands-on experience.

I think I can still remember the recording I made about 10 years ago that
marked my return to live sound and recording. It was a joke!

>
>> I haven't seen the daily schedules, so I don't know
>> exactly how many choir recordings I'm going to do next
>> week, but it will be between 50 and 100.

> I assume you mean /month/.

Thursday, Friday, Saturday of next week. ;-)

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
> message
> >>>> Experience with precisely this problem, and long
> >>>> reading of your posts on the subject of audio lead me
> >>>> to believe that your existence is based entirely on
> >>>> wishful thinking.
> >
> >>> I'm not sure what you mean. But I'm an idealist. You
> >>> don't do something poorly simply because it's hard to
> >>> do it well.
> >
> >> I think the point is that there's a lot to say for
> >> actual hands-on experience.
>
> > No argument. The only orchestra I recorded on a regular
> > basis was the Chamber Orchestra of Philadelphia. I
> > usually put the mics above and slightly behind the
> > conductor. (On the occasion William Smith conducted, the
> > mics fell on him. He thought it was funny. I didn't.)
>
> There are a very limited number of opportunities to record *name*
> orchestras.
>
> There are plenty of opportunities to record people who like to play music.
>
> > JGH told me just how long it took to find a simple mic
> > setup that more-or-less accurately represented how a
> > performing group sounded in a particular hall (or was at
> > least euphonic).
>
> Hmmm, 30 or so years ago we didn't have decent mic preamps selling on
> virtually every street corner.
>
> > When you don't have time for
> > experimentation, multi-miking can be the difference
> > between getting a decent recording and a mediocre one.
>
> I find that multiple spot mics plus a good coincident pair recording via a
> multitrack recorder is a neat way to delay making a lot of decisions until
> you really have the time to experiment.
>
> > On the other hand, getting the mic pair fairly high up where
> > it could "see" the full orchestra never produced a badly
> > balanced recording (that I recall). Remember, the louder
> > instruments have traditionally been placed towards the
> > rear.
>
> Placing mics and speakers high facilitate following the 2:1 rule. The
> counterpoint is that you often get a warmer recording by placing the mics
> far closer to the floor.
>
> > 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.
>
> IME it all depends. While I absolutely don't get the paranoia about
> multi-micing, I also don't get micing the overall sonic scene. The approach
> and the tools depends on what you are recording.
>
>
> > Arny, I have an audiophile LP of autoharp music that
> > shows the recording session. The two players are seated
> > next to each other, at about 45 degrees. There are two
> > separate mics -- NOT a stereo pair -- one on each
> > autoharp, and each player is wearing bleeping HEADPHONES!
> > Do I need to say anything else?
>
> So you're saying it was dual mono. IME audiophile recordings are all over
> the map. Some are plainly wonderful recordings done by skilled craftsmen.
> But I've also seen some overpriced drek with a impressive equipment list.
>
> > At least I went out and made recordings, which is
> > something few reviewers, and hardly any listeners, have
> > ever done.
>
> Hence my comments about hands-on experience.
>
> I think I can still remember the recording I made about 10 years ago that
> marked my return to live sound and recording. It was a joke!
>
> >
> >> I haven't seen the daily schedules, so I don't know
> >> exactly how many choir recordings I'm going to do next
> >> week, but it will be between 50 and 100.
>
> > I assume you mean /month/.
>
> Thursday, Friday, Saturday of next week. ;-)

It 'tis indeed festival season! I'm judging one and running one next
week.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[William Sommerwerck]

>> JGH told me just how long it took to find a simple mic
>> setup that more-or-less accurately represented how a
>> performing group sounded in a particular hall (or was at
>> least euphonic).

> Hmmm, 30 or so years ago we didn't have decent mic
> preamps selling on virtually every street corner.

I think you need to reread what I wrote. (above)


>>> I haven't seen the daily schedules, so I don't know
>>> exactly how many choir recordings I'm going to do
>>> next week, but it will be between 50 and 100.

>> I assume you mean /month/.

> Thursday, Friday, Saturday of next week. ;-)

Thou jesteth!

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article

> >, "Arny
> Krueger" > wrote:
>

>>>> I haven't seen the daily schedules, so I don't know
>>>> exactly how many choir recordings I'm going to do next
>>>> week, but it will be between 50 and 100.

>>> I assume you mean /month/.

>> Thursday, Friday, Saturday of next week. ;-)

> It 'tis indeed festival season! I'm judging one and
> running one next week.

What level are the participants?

I think that at least one of these I'm doing next week is going to be Middle
School choirs.

I lust after a festival gig that would involve people who are past High
School.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message
>>>> After hearing the exhibit I felt that we hadn't made
>>>> much progress in 40 years.
>
>>> Actually, we've made tremendous progress. The best
>>> modern recordings deliver a level of fidelity not
>>> possible 40 years ago.
>
>> And the worst modern recordings deliver a level of
>> cacophony that was probably not possible 40 years ago.
>> One of the nice things about vinyl and legacy analog
>> tape is that their power-bandwidth limitations kept
>> people out of places they should never go.

> Could you give some examples?

I'd have to dedicate some time to some research as I stopped listening to
this drek about 8 years back. I see people shouting and screaming about the
horror, and I see the pictures of the waves, so I know that the worst of it
has to still be as bad as ever.

[Scott Dorsey]

Jenn > wrote:
>>
>> Thursday, Friday, Saturday of next week. ;-)
>
>It 'tis indeed festival season! I'm judging one and running one next
>week.

Festival business has really fallen off for me this season. Roger Norman's
crew isn't doing the ECJF now that it's collapsed and been reborn, two of
the classical festivals are pulling the reins on finances tight and
two of the celtic festivals I normally do have shut down completely due to
finances. Anyone else seeing this?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

>>>> I haven't seen the daily schedules, so I don't know
>>>> exactly how many choir recordings I'm going to do
>>>> next week, but it will be between 50 and 100.

>>> I assume you mean /month/.

>> Thursday, Friday, Saturday of next week. ;-)

> It 'tis indeed festival season! I'm judging one and
> running one next week.

Now, I get it... Multiple recordings at the same venue.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article
>
> > >, "Arny
> > Krueger" > wrote:
> >
>
> >>>> I haven't seen the daily schedules, so I don't know
> >>>> exactly how many choir recordings I'm going to do next
> >>>> week, but it will be between 50 and 100.
>
> >>> I assume you mean /month/.
>
> >> Thursday, Friday, Saturday of next week. ;-)
>
> > It 'tis indeed festival season! I'm judging one and
> > running one next week.
>
> What level are the participants?
>
> I think that at least one of these I'm doing next week is going to be Middle
> School choirs.
>
> I lust after a festival gig that would involve people who are past High
> School.

Both are HS and JHS bands and orchestras. CA, TX, and your state at the
"hot beds" of such activity. They are in every state, of course, but
those are the big three. We also hosted a piano festival for the
western US in November for 14-21 year olds. SUper talented kids.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Norman Schwartz]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>> But... I recently heard something on DG that didn't
>> sound horrible so things are at least improving.
>
> This morning I pulled out the recent Brahms disk with the Emerson Quartet
> and Fleisher. This is a heavily multi-miked recording, with sound so
> colored
> and dated it's unbelievable. It could have been made 45 years ago.
>
> Who the hell multi-mikes a bleeping string quartet? If were a member of
> the
> Emerson Quartet, I would consider it a gross insult to our musical skills.
>
I prefer seats for performances by small ensembles where the sound as it
reaches my ears could have easily have come from a small number of different
loudspeakers, and I can't understand why anyone would not like it this way
both live and at home. (In fact many years ago Acoustic Research offered
their infamous demonstration a live/recorded comparison of their speakers
this way.) OTOH should a listener own a MC system offering sound from many
different locations, including from behind his ears, I can easily understand
why he might dislike this particular Emerson/Fleisher recording (but now I'm
going astray).

>

[PStamler]

On Mar 11, 8:49*am, "William Sommerwerck" >
wrote:

> Why make a high-quality product for people who don't care?

The short answer is that the people who sign the checks, and hire you
back for the next gig, care. Sometimes.

Peace,
Paul

[PStamler]

On Mar 11, 10:11*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Jenn > wrote:
>
> >> Thursday, Friday, Saturday of next week. *;-)
>
> >It 'tis indeed festival season! *I'm judging one and running one next
> >week.
>
> Festival business has really fallen off for me this season. *Roger Norman's
> crew isn't doing the ECJF now that it's collapsed and been reborn, two of
> the classical festivals are pulling the reins on finances tight and
> two of the celtic festivals I normally do have shut down completely due to
> finances. *Anyone else seeing this?

I saw it a couple of years ago, when the Salt River Folk Festival I
did live sound for every August lost most of its funding. No more out-
of-town musicians, just the local bluegrass band, and no more out-of-
town engineer (me), just the bluegrass band's bar PA.

Peace,
Paul

[William Sommerwerck]

>> Who the hell multi-mikes a bleeping string quartet? If were
>> a member of the Emerson Quartet, I would consider it a
>> gross insult to our musical skills.

> I prefer seats for performances by small ensembles where the
> sound as it reaches my ears could have easily have come from
> a small number of different [sic] loudspeakers, and I can't understand
> why anyone would not like it this way both live and at home.

Well, of course. That's the point.


> In fact, many years ago Acoustic Research offered their infamous
> demonstration a live/recorded comparison of their speakers this way.

"Famous" would be more accurate. It's the incorrect conclusions drawn from
these demos -- which really ought to be repeated -- that could be called
infamous.


> OTOH, should a listener own a MC system offering sound from many
> different locations, including from behind his ears, I can easily
understand
> why he might dislike this particular Emerson/Fleisher recording (but now
I'm
> going astray).

The Emerson/Fleisher recording, though multi-miked, is a two-channel
recording. It is not surround. Had it been, it would probably have sounded a
lot less unnatural.

"Circus Maximus" just arrived. I hope to have something to say about it
tomorrow.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message
>>> JGH told me just how long it took to find a simple mic
>>> setup that more-or-less accurately represented how a
>>> performing group sounded in a particular hall (or was at
>>> least euphonic).
>
>> Hmmm, 30 or so years ago we didn't have decent mic
>> preamps selling on virtually every street corner.
>
> I think you need to reread what I wrote. (above)

True. My apologies.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article
> >, "Arny
> Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>>> I haven't seen the daily schedules, so I don't know
>>>>>> exactly how many choir recordings I'm going to do
>>>>>> next week, but it will be between 50 and 100.
>>
>>>>> I assume you mean /month/.
>>
>>>> Thursday, Friday, Saturday of next week. ;-)
>>
>>> It 'tis indeed festival season! I'm judging one and
>>> running one next week.
>>
>> What level are the participants?
>>
>> I think that at least one of these I'm doing next week
>> is going to be Middle School choirs.

>> I lust after a festival gig that would involve people
>> who are past High School.

> Both are HS and JHS bands and orchestras.

Week before last I did a very fine band festival in Jackson. The HS
auditorium is in a wonderful old building that was built in 1927 and
**totally** refurbished about 10 years ago. All infrastructure is new tech,
but the origional appearance was preserved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_High_School_(Jackson,_Michigan) (worth
clicking just to see the picture)

The auditorium has a very mellow, warm sound. The Band Director at JHS is
probably the best of band directors in this part of the state, if not the
whole state.

> CA, TX, and
> your state at the "hot beds" of such activity. They are
> in every state, of course, but those are the big three.

I had no idea that MI was exceptional in this way. I do know that our judges
come from all over the country.

> We also hosted a piano festival for the western US in
> November for 14-21 year olds. SUper talented kids.

I've never done a festival with soloists.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message

> Why make a high-quality product for people who don't
> care?

Because I care.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> Why make a high-quality product for people
>> who don't care?

> Because I care.

Well, so do I. At least as much as you.

[Bill Graham]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> Last night I listened to the Janacek Quartet recordings of Beethoven
> op. 59 #2 from the Original Masters box. An early stereo-era
> Westminster recording. And how joyful to hear each instrument in its
> place, not blended together by some sloppy technician from multiple
> tracks. At several moments I felt like I could sense the
> instrumentalists talking to one another through their playing. Its a
> shame many of these Original Masters boxes are disappearing so fast,
> especially those (like this Janacek Quartet box) that are truly
> "complete", representing all of the Universal recordings of an artist,
> conductor, or ensemble.
>
>> But then this also harkens back to arguments about listening habits.
> One of my high school English teachers emphatically insisted that
> "nobody" just "listens" to music, but one is always doing somethng
> else too. While I disagree with him, those of us who do frequently sit
> in our sweet spot and block out all distractions to "just listen" to
> the music, we are a very very very very small minority. The vast
> majority play music while reading a periodical, talking with someone,
> washing the dishes, or a hostful full of other tasks. The music is,
> for the masses of consumers who make up most of the buyers the record
> companies make their profits on, the background and not the occasion.
> And that being the case, those who care about sound stage and ambience
> are an almost inaudible voice to record compnay executives.
>
> Why make a high-quality product for people who don't care? Music is
> something to be "consumed", not experience, enjoyed, or appreciated.

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.

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> In 45 years, NOTHING HAS CHANGED, despite the fact that we now have
> distribution media that place no meaningful limits on what can be recorded.
> Despite what John Atkinson states, the majors still produce bad-sounding
> multi-track recordings.

The "majors", such as they are now, aim for the lowest common
denominator, and their aim can be true. Lady Gaga brings home the bacon.
Have lowest common denominator and high quality ever been synonymous?

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> > But... I recently heard something on DG that didn't
> > sound horrible so things are at least improving.
>
> This morning I pulled out the recent Brahms disk with the Emerson Quartet
> and Fleisher. This is a heavily multi-miked recording, with sound so colored
> and dated it's unbelievable. It could have been made 45 years ago.
>
> Who the hell multi-mikes a bleeping string quartet? If were a member of the
> Emerson Quartet, I would consider it a gross insult to our musical skills.

You might be surprised by how little interest many musicians take in the
redording process, and of it how little is known by how many.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[hank alrich]

O > wrote:

> In article >, Kulin Remailer
> > wrote:
>
> > > In 45 years, NOTHING HAS CHANGED, despite the fact that we now have
> > > distribution media that place no meaningful limits on what can be
> > > recorded.
> >
> > That's not entirely true. 45 years ago you could not spend (and I use that
> > term loosely) $6,500 (or whatever it was in that horrible thread) on a set
> > of speaker cables. Today you can. If that isn't progress then I don't know
> > what is. Thanks for the link btw.
> >
> >
> Hey, if you don't buy the expensive Monster digital cables to hook up
> your HDTV the bits could leak out the wire and fall on the floor, at
> least according to an expert I heard at BestBuy.
>
> -Owen, mopping up bits.

And you gotta get 'em all, Owen, or somebody might slip on them and fall
and sue you. If we all had Mon$ter Cabel$ that kind of thing could never
happen.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[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/papercite-data/pdf/pras_subjective_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/products.aspx?c=catalog&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=current_accessories&cid=db_current_accessories&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/papercite-data/pdf/pras_subjective_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

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message
>> Here is a relevant AES paper that compares listening
>> panels, one of engineers, one of musicans:
>>
> http://mil.mcgill.ca/wp-content/papercite-data/pdf/pras_subjective_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.

Technical compromise to suit the delivery format is at least as old as the
LP or AM radio.

The essence of mastering for a given delivery format is avoiding taking the
program to places that the format can't handle without sounding ugly, and if
possible taking advantage of any euphonic colorations that are inherent in
the delivery format.

This is a two-edged sword because the dynamic range and spectral limitations
of a medium can force people to avoid programming excess brightness, for
example.

> 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.

Mastering for each of several different formats costs money. The multiple
inventory game can cost money. But less so when the inventory is just bits
on a hard drive.

> 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.

I personally find the LP format to be more intrusive and limiting than MP3
with bitrates above 128kb. Since there are people who prefer LPs to CDs, I
find them scarier than these kids who prefer MP3s.

[Scott Dorsey]

Norman Schwartz > wrote:
>I prefer seats for performances by small ensembles where the sound as it
>reaches my ears could have easily have come from a small number of different
>loudspeakers, and I can't understand why anyone would not like it this way
>both live and at home. (In fact many years ago Acoustic Research offered
>their infamous demonstration a live/recorded comparison of their speakers
>this way.)

Problem with this is that the radiation pattern of instruments is different
than that of speakers. The sound isn't coming out of the same place in
the same direction, and most instruments make a lot of different sounds in
different directions. So just putting a speaker where the instrument was
and playing an isolated instrument feed doesn't quite work.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>> 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.)

That's changing. Used to be all the big films were mixed on a dubbing stage
that approximated the sound of a theatre. These days an increasing number of
them are being mixed on nearfields in a small room and the overall change
in sound is substantial.

The argument made, of course, is that most people are watching movies at
home anyway, and that's probably even valid.

>> 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.

And most of those recordings are interesting but far from natural. One of
my favorite examples is the album for Mancini's _Charade_ with the drum kit
right up in your face and bigger than the orchestra.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Neil Gould]

Don Pearce wrote:
> 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.
>
And, the "k" in "microphone" is located...???

> If you take that into
> German it is Mikrofon, which provides a K very handily.
>
The word "miking" doesn't make sense in German, either. Why not simply
accept the term as the jargon it is?

--
best regards,

Neil

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Neil Gould wrote:

> And, the "k" in "microphone" is located...???

Prononunciationwise in front of the "r".

>> If you take that into
>> German it is Mikrofon, which provides a K very handily.

> The word "miking" doesn't make sense in German, either.

They build verbs from nouns slightly differently, in gp english it is how it
is.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 13:45:26 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>And, the "k" in "microphone" is located...???
>
>> If you take that into
>> German it is Mikrofon, which provides a K very handily.
>>
>The word "miking" doesn't make sense in German, either. Why not simply
>accept the term as the jargon it is?

Cos it isn't. It is a gerund and it is not jargon. Jargon is an
attempt to make things incomprehensible to the "outsider". Think of
wine fanciers talking about nose and bouquet rather than smell. That
is jargon - a word used despite there being a perfectly good normal
word. There is no other word for miking, and it is an inclusive word
that everybody gets - the opposite of jargon.

d

[William Sommerwerck]

>> 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.

> I personally find the LP format to be more intrusive and limiting
> than MP3 with bitrates above 128kb. Since there are people
> who prefer LPs to CDs, I find them scarier than these kids who
> prefer MP3s.

Point taken, but LPs aren't likely to return to their position of dominant
music-distribution medium. The possibility that some lossy-compression
system /might/, is the scary thing.

[William Sommerwerck]

> And most of those recordings are interesting but far from
> natural. One of my favorite examples is the album for
> Mancini's _Charade_ with the drum kit right up in your face
> and bigger than the orchestra.

I rather liked the RCA reissue of the Star Wars soundtracks a few years ago.
The multimiking and dry acoustic revealed just about everything going on in
these scores.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>> I personally find the LP format to be more intrusive and limiting
>> than MP3 with bitrates above 128kb. Since there are people
>> who prefer LPs to CDs, I find them scarier than these kids who
>> prefer MP3s.
>
>Point taken, but LPs aren't likely to return to their position of dominant
>music-distribution medium. The possibility that some lossy-compression
>system /might/, is the scary thing.

Both LPs and MP3s have artifacts that can be exaggerated or concealed by
different source material. So which artifacts you find less offensive may
also have something to do with the music you're listening to.

I can cut a damn transparent-sounding LP as long as you don't need more
than about twelve minutes on a side. Problem is that Beethoven's Ninth
takes four discs that way....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gerard]

Don Pearce wrote:
>
> Cos it isn't. It is a gerund and it is not jargon. Jargon is an
> attempt to make things incomprehensible to the "outsider".

Like "cos"?

[John Wiser[_2_]]

"Gerard" > wrote in message
.home.nl...
> Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>> Cos it isn't. It is a gerund and it is not jargon. Jargon is an
>> attempt to make things incomprehensible to the "outsider".
>
> Like "cos"?
>
Your lack of resourcefulness
is only outstripped
by your lack of common sense,
and possibly by your bad manners.

JDW

[Gerard]

John Wiser wrote:
> "Gerard" > wrote in message
> .home.nl...
> > Don Pearce wrote:
> > >
> > > Cos it isn't. It is a gerund and it is not jargon. Jargon is an
> > > attempt to make things incomprehensible to the "outsider".
> >
> > Like "cos"?
> >
> Your lack of resourcefulness
> is only outstripped
> by your lack of common sense,
> and possibly by your bad manners.
>
> JDW

Let's not talk about "your bad manners".
Did you ever have any good ones?

[William Sommerwerck]

> I can cut a damn transparent-sounding LP as long as
> you don't need more than about twelve minutes on a side.
> Problem is that Beethoven's Ninth takes four discs that way...

Ever heard dbx-encoded disks?

[Kip Williams]

Neil Gould wrote:

> And, the "k" in "microphone" is located...???

In the sound, and in the inconvenient fact that putting an i after a c
changes the sound.


Kip W

[Neil Gould]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 13:45:26 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote:
>>
>> The word "miking" doesn't make sense in German, either. Why not
>> simply accept the term as the jargon it is?
>
> Cos it isn't. It is a gerund and it is not jargon. Jargon is an
> attempt to make things incomprehensible to the "outsider". Think of
> wine fanciers talking about nose and bouquet rather than smell. That
> is jargon - a word used despite there being a perfectly good normal
> word. There is no other word for miking, and it is an inclusive word
> that everybody gets - the opposite of jargon.
>
jar·gon
[jahr-guhn, -gon]
-noun
1. the language, especially the vocabulary, peculiar to a particular trade,
profession, or group: medical jargon.

--
best regards,

Neil

[David O.]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:49:54 -0400, Kip Williams
> wrote:

>> And, the "k" in "microphone" is located...???
>
>In the sound, and in the inconvenient fact that putting an i after a c
>changes the sound.

I guess we're stuck with "miked" & "miking" for the participial forms,
even though we have the noun "mic."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>> I can cut a damn transparent-sounding LP as long as
>> you don't need more than about twelve minutes on a side.
>> Problem is that Beethoven's Ninth takes four discs that way...
>
>Ever heard dbx-encoded disks?

I never have. I was never happy with dbx on tape, but on disc there's so
much juggling going on already that the artifacts might be worth it.
--scott

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

[William Sommerwerck]

>> Ever heard dbx-encoded disks?

> I never have. I was never happy with dbx on tape, but on
> disc there's so much juggling going on already that the
> artifacts might be worth it.

I have a lot of dbx discs. It's been some years since I listened to any.
Perhaps I ought to pull a few out. They were the best phonograph records I
ever heard.

[Bill Graham]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> Ever heard dbx-encoded disks?
>
>> I never have. I was never happy with dbx on tape, but on
>> disc there's so much juggling going on already that the
>> artifacts might be worth it.
>
> I have a lot of dbx discs. It's been some years since I listened to
> any. Perhaps I ought to pull a few out. They were the best phonograph
> records I ever heard.

There was a good program on the History channel the other night about the
Smithsonian. they said something about CD's made around the beginning of
this century that had a tendency to deteriorate faster than some of the
later ones, but I tuned in just about then, and didn't catch all of
it....Something about "acrylic" materials not being used yet.... I wonder if
anyone knows anything about this, and how to tell the good ones from the bad
ones.....

[Scott Dorsey]

Bill Graham > wrote:
>There was a good program on the History channel the other night about the
>Smithsonian. they said something about CD's made around the beginning of
>this century that had a tendency to deteriorate faster than some of the
>later ones, but I tuned in just about then, and didn't catch all of
>it....Something about "acrylic" materials not being used yet.... I wonder if
>anyone knows anything about this, and how to tell the good ones from the bad
>ones.....

There are at least two big issues that exist. First of all, the Nimbus
plant did a few runs of discs with a bad screen printing ink which ate
through the aluminized layer. By now, all of those should have failed long ago.

Secondly, and by far the worst problem, the PDO plant made discs for many
years with a bad PC formulation that turned yellow and made them unreadable.
Many but not all of those discs have PDO somewhere on the lead-out.

At one point PDO was replacing discs directly for end-users but that stopped
years and years ago.

Basically, if you put it on the player and it won't play properly, it's bad.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Harry Lavo]

"Kip Williams" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

Nonetheless, "mic" is the proper spelling....and the English tend to get it
right, while we Americans do not.

[William Sommerwerck]

> Secondly, and by far the worst problem, the PDO plant
> made discs for many years with a bad PC formulation
> that turned yellow and made them unreadable. Many
> but not all of those discs have PDO somewhere on the
> lead-out.

> At one point PDO was replacing discs directly for end-users
> but that stopped years and years ago.

I caught them at the end, about three years ago. I was lucky to have about
20 Hyperions replaced.

Some of these disks had a yellow dye in the plastic, making it difficult to
tell whether the disk was bad or just had an odd color. The PDO guy agreed
with me that it was a bad idea to color the disks!

[Harry Lavo]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>>> Correct. Philips wasn't happy with the "matrix" systems and
>>> held off on quad.
>
>> This was definitely a CD-4 recording, since it actually _does_ manage to
>> pan to the corners (which you can't really do with the matrix systems).
>
> Apparently Philips wasn't happy with CD-4, nor were most of the people who
> actually heard it.
>
> A quadraphile acquaintance told me he heard a demo of CD-4 at JVC's Los
> Angeles facilities before JVC (he said) compromised the system. He claimed
> the sound was the best he'd ever heard, regardless of medium.
>
> I could never get CD-4 to work without breakup and distortion, mostly
> because I wasn't willing to invest in a proper CD-4 pickup. (When I
> switched
> from a Dual to a "proper" turntable, I could no longer easily swap
> pickups.)
>
> Actually, the matrix systems can produce audible hard pans to the
> corners --
> if you have one of the better decoders.
>
I was working at Harman/Kardan at the height of the discrete CD-4 / matrixed
SQ/QS quad-sound craze. I also had such setups in my living room. There
was no doubt that CD-4 had better separation than even the best (at the
time) matrixed sound. But it was also true that only a very few cartridges
with line-contact styli and the ability to track at one-to-one and a quarter
grams were able to play these records more than a few times without causing
deterioration, distortion, and lack of separation.

It is a shame that at least the SQ system didn't survive, since later fully
logic-enabled decoders could do a decent job. Even today my main tv signals
are analog decoded via "TruSurround" and then fed into an analog
five-channel preamp with its own built in matrixing....thus providing
double-matrixing and giving a very, very nice fairly discreet five channels.

[David O.]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 21:22:17 -0400, "Harry Lavo" >
wrote:

>Nonetheless, "mic" is the proper spelling....and the English tend to get it
>right, while we Americans do not.

Would you mind citing some authority? Follett? Garner? Epstein?
Morris? I myself use the "mic" spelling, but I've always thought I had
no backup.

And if "mic" is the only correct spelling, what do we do for a
preterite or a present participle form?

[Bill Graham]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Bill Graham > wrote:
>> There was a good program on the History channel the other night
>> about the Smithsonian. they said something about CD's made around
>> the beginning of this century that had a tendency to deteriorate
>> faster than some of the later ones, but I tuned in just about then,
>> and didn't catch all of it....Something about "acrylic" materials
>> not being used yet.... I wonder if anyone knows anything about this,
>> and how to tell the good ones from the bad ones.....
>
> There are at least two big issues that exist. First of all, the
> Nimbus
> plant did a few runs of discs with a bad screen printing ink which ate
> through the aluminized layer. By now, all of those should have
> failed long ago.
>
> Secondly, and by far the worst problem, the PDO plant made discs for
> many
> years with a bad PC formulation that turned yellow and made them
> unreadable. Many but not all of those discs have PDO somewhere on the
> lead-out.
>
> At one point PDO was replacing discs directly for end-users but that
> stopped years and years ago.
>
> Basically, if you put it on the player and it won't play properly,
> it's bad. --scott

Yeah.... That "turning yellow" was what I heard, but I didn't get exactly
why. The problem is, by the time it gets to my player, its too late. I buy
most of my music from the web, and sending it back is too much trouble. If I
only bought contemporary stuff, there would be no problem, but I am a geezer
who likes music from the 40's and 50's and classical stuff, and I usually
have no idea when the CD's were pressed, so I am liable to get one of these
any time.

[Harry Lavo]

"David O." > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 21:22:17 -0400, "Harry Lavo" >
> wrote:
>
>>Nonetheless, "mic" is the proper spelling....and the English tend to get
>>it
>>right, while we Americans do not.
>
> Would you mind citing some authority? Follett? Garner? Epstein?
> Morris? I myself use the "mic" spelling, but I've always thought I had
> no backup.
>
> And if "mic" is the only correct spelling, what do we do for a
> preterite or a present participle form?

to mic....

to have mic'd...

[Bill Graham]

David O. wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 21:22:17 -0400, "Harry Lavo" >
> wrote:
>
>> Nonetheless, "mic" is the proper spelling....and the English tend to
>> get it right, while we Americans do not.
>
> Would you mind citing some authority? Follett? Garner? Epstein?
> Morris? I myself use the "mic" spelling, but I've always thought I had
> no backup.
>
> And if "mic" is the only correct spelling, what do we do for a
> preterite or a present participle form?

In any case, its a nickname for "microphone", so I don't see that it matters
very much.

[Section87]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kip Williams" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.
>
> Nonetheless, "mic" is the proper spelling....and the English tend to
> get it right, while we Americans do not.

Nonetheless, I just checked a few dictionaries, and they all showed
"mike" as proper spelling, for both the noun and the verb. For instance,
one dictionary had several entries for "mike," one of them for the
informal synonym for microphone. It listed "miked" and "miking" as the
spellings of other forms of the verb. The spelling "mic" was listed as
an acceptable alternate spelling, but it was only listed as a noun.

"Mike" and "mic" are both wideley used, and there really isn't any
compelling reason to consider either of them incorrect. There are
definitely problems with "mice" and "micing." The spellings of slang,
informal, and abbreviated words are not genarally controlled by
arbitrary and pedantic rules. The conflict with the existing plural
rodent is a problem that transcends arbitray pedantry.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"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.

Stereotype indeed, and a poor one.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

David O. wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:49:54 -0400, Kip Williams
> > wrote:

>>> And, the "k" in "microphone" is located...???

>> In the sound, and in the inconvenient fact that putting an i after a
>> c changes the sound.

> I guess we're stuck with "miked" & "miking" for the participial forms,
> even though we have the noun "mic."

There is no "even though", did you skip your latin class?

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Harry Lavo wrote:

> Nonetheless, "mic" is the proper spelling....and the English tend to
> get it right, while we Americans do not.

Mic and mike are the spellings that give the proper pronounciation as per
the latin rules.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[David O.]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 04:46:04 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
> wrote:

>> I guess we're stuck with "miked" & "miking" for the participial forms,
>> even though we have the noun "mic."
>
>There is no "even though", did you skip your latin class?

I did. I was learning about comma splices that day.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

David O. wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 04:46:04 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
> > wrote:

>>> I guess we're stuck with "miked" & "miking" for the participial
>>> forms, even though we have the noun "mic."

>> There is no "even though", did you skip your latin class?

> I did. I was learning about comma splices that day.

That is why the "c" gets replaced by a k in the spelling when followed by a
wovel.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Kip Williams]

Harry Lavo wrote:

> Nonetheless, "mic" is the proper spelling....and the English tend to get it
> right, while we Americans do not.

"Mike" has been used since 1927. The first reported usage of "mic" is
belived to be 1961.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_proper_abbreviation_for_microphone_mic _or_mike


Kip W

[William Sommerwerck]

>> 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.

> My serious music listening system is 2 CH. However whenever I direct the
> side/rear channels of a MC disc to my (stereo) speakers, I've always
> concluded that what I've heard has never been 'ambient' sound (and
> definitely not what I hear from my sides/rear when seated in a hall).

You're correct. The ambient sounds need to be reproduced from the sides and
rear -- not the front. When they're mixed with the frontal sounds, the
result is a big increase in coloration and an unnaturally reverberant sound.

Don't do this!

[Norman Schwartz]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

>
> 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.
>
My serious music listening system is 2 CH. However whenever I direct the
side/rear channels of a MC disc to my (stereo) speakers, I've always
concluded that what I've heard has never been 'ambient' sound (and
definitely not what I hear from my sides/rear when seated in a hall).

[Frank Stearns]

"William Sommerwerck" > writes:

>> 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!

No, not that. These spheres are around 30mm in diameter and slip over the business
end of the 183. They give a slight rise at 10Khz in the front and slight dip at 10K
from the rear -- adds a little directivity for spatial cueing.


>> 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.

No here as well. You'd have much more time alignment issues, distracting
movement (a lot of classical soloists move quite a bit), more bleed because you
have a much wider field then you need, etc.

Keep in mind that in the mix these spot are not all that loud. They just "twist the
focus knob" if you will.

><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.

Totally agreed, though on an orchestra/choir session last year I did the latter, for
the sake of editing capabilities. I was somewhat neutral to negative going in, but
was surprised how really, really good microphones (several vintage Klaus
Heyne-modified small diaphragm Neumanns) helped pull this off. They were loaned by a
friend for that project. Layered reverb fields in post helped as well, along with
initial careful mic placement and really good players.

I had a stereo pair, and wound up bringing it into the mix just a little. It was a
nice "glue". Fortunately, there was far less editing than anticipated.

But generally, it's two pair and 1-6 spots. In the live world with tight budgets and
busy venues, there isn't time for much else.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Frank Stearns]

"William Sommerwerck" > writes:

>>> 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.


Perception of reverb often depends on how "clean" the phase relationships are both
in the recording and in the home playback system.

If either is screwed up, you can start getting more of a Left-minus-right thing
going on to various degrees, leaving way more perceived reverb than anticipated.

It's also how much time you spend setting up the reverb fields. Some folks just have
either a box or a DAW template and send to/receive from it. They don't take time to
really integrate the reverb field(s) to the music. There are a number of reverb
parameters in a good DAW reverb, there is no one "fits-all" setting.

It can take some time to setup a good reverb for the music you're doing, but it can
make quite a bit of difference between reverb that sounds like, "oh, that's
recording studio star-maker echo", and "oh, what a lovely hall you were in to record
that. Did you have to travel far?"

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns > wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
>
>>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.
>
>I think you're right, but as a location practical matter there often isn't
>time, fully trustworthy monitoring, etc. This is probably something reserved for a
>hall one knows pretty well, and a group you've worked with many times before.

And if possible it should be reserved for when you have a whole lot of
setup time available.

I am really ****ed off right now because we had a really amazing hall in
town that nobody knew about, which just got renovated and now has all kinds
of flutter echoes that it didn't have before.

>>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.
>
>Live is most of what I do; all my stuff is flat black, and the LD mics are in small
>packages (thank you, Gefell!)

Until this spring when that market seemed to collapse here, it was most of
the stuff I did too. And, yeah, I use spots too, but I still feel bad about
it.

>This is the one technique I've still not tried... You've mentioned it before, and
>I've wanted to have a go with it; just haven't had time. If I can play using my
>current KM183 and not spend the $8K+ for the KFM-6, I'm all for that!
>
>I'll do some poking around to see what disk designs might be a fit for my kit and
>put one together -- soon as I get a few spare cycles.

Take a round piece of sheet aluminum, maybe two feet around. Glue some thick
foam to either side.

You can make it smaller or larger depending on the corner frequency. Actually
a couple nine-inch mouse pads glued together with an aluminum sheet between
them works quite nicely.
--scott


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

[Doug McDonald[_6_]]

On 3/13/2011 3:44 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> I can cut a damn transparent-sounding LP as long as
>> you don't need more than about twelve minutes on a side.
>> Problem is that Beethoven's Ninth takes four discs that way...
>
> Ever heard dbx-encoded disks?
>
>
Yes, I own many, and a working decoder.

Yes, they are amazingly good.

But .... one does wonder how the feedback-type decoder does as well
as it does! One wonders (euphemism for "I wonder") if a true
Golden Ear would not hear artifacts cause by the encode-decode cycle.

Doug McDonald

[William Sommerwerck]

>> Ever heard dbx-encoded disks?

> Yes, I own many, and a working decoder.
> Yes, they are amazingly good.

> But ... one does wonder how the feedback-type decoder does
> as well as it does! One wonders (euphemism for "I wonder") if a
> true Golden Ear would not hear artifacts cause by the encode-
> decode cycle.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "feedback-type decoder".

A late friend of mine used dbx for live recordings. He said he could hear
encode/decode artifacts on certain instruments, such as horn. I used dbx for
many years, but never heard such things. Perhaps I didn't know what to
listen for.

Over 30 years ago, I brought a dbx II system I'd calibrated for unity
encode/decode to a golden-eared friend, who designed speakers and
electronics. I suggested we do a bypass test. We both felt we /would/ be
able to hear some change or degradation. We did not, even though we knew
when the dbx was in the circuit.

Of course, there was no tape recorder -- I was trying to see just how
audible the electronics, and the basic encode/decode processing was. A tape
recorder might introduce errors that would cause the decoder to misbehave.

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

snips

>You can make it smaller or larger depending on the corner frequency. Actually
>a couple nine-inch mouse pads glued together with an aluminum sheet between
>them works quite nicely.

Interesting... You don't get reflections from relatively dense foam of the mouse pad
variety?

I was thinking of possibly trying round chunks of 1" 703 (or 705, if I could find it
in 1"), cloth covered and sandwiched with plug of 4 or 5 mm baltic birch plywood in
the middle.

What's the typical distance diaphragm to diaphram?

Thanks for the info,

Frank
Mobile Audio


PS - sad about the hall. There are several in this area where the same thing has
happened. Only one smaller church remodel last year was a success (and a nice one at
that). 1 for 5... Not very good.

What the hell are they teaching these so-called acousticians/architects these days?

--

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns > wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
>
>>You can make it smaller or larger depending on the corner frequency. Actually
>>a couple nine-inch mouse pads glued together with an aluminum sheet between
>>them works quite nicely.
>
>Interesting... You don't get reflections from relatively dense foam of the mouse pad
>variety?

You probably do, but the spacing is close enough that it's not a big deal. It
may cause a little comb filtering in the top octave.

>I was thinking of possibly trying round chunks of 1" 703 (or 705, if I could find it
>in 1"), cloth covered and sandwiched with plug of 4 or 5 mm baltic birch plywood in
>the middle.

The bigger you get it, the lower frequency the intensity imaging goes down to.
But you don't really need it below 1500 Hz or so. It doesn't need to be super
heavy but I don't think that will hurt anything more than your back.

>What's the typical distance diaphragm to diaphram?

About as far apart as your ears are, perhaps eight or nine inches. The wider
you space them, the wider the stereo image at low frequencies gets.

I like to use the 1" B&K 4145 measurement mikes which are a little beamy on
top. Cock them outwards and you get a little more intensity stereo at high
frequencies.
--scott

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

[Mike Clayton]

Frank Stearns wrote:
> (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>
> snips
>
>> You can make it smaller or larger depending on the corner frequency. Actually
>> a couple nine-inch mouse pads glued together with an aluminum sheet between
>> them works quite nicely.
>
> Interesting... You don't get reflections from relatively dense foam of the mouse pad
> variety?
>
> I was thinking of possibly trying round chunks of 1" 703 (or 705, if I could find it
> in 1"), cloth covered and sandwiched with plug of 4 or 5 mm baltic birch plywood in
> the middle.
>
> What's the typical distance diaphragm to diaphram?
>
> Thanks for the info,
>
> Frank

Frank, Have a look at http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com/ for an approach
to using and making a Jecklin Disc.

Mike

[Frank Stearns]

Mike Clayton > writes:

>Frank Stearns wrote:
>> (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>
>> snips
>>
>>> You can make it smaller or larger depending on the corner frequency. Actually
>>> a couple nine-inch mouse pads glued together with an aluminum sheet between
>>> them works quite nicely.
>>
>> Interesting... You don't get reflections from relatively dense foam of the mouse pad
>> variety?
>>
>> I was thinking of possibly trying round chunks of 1" 703 (or 705, if I could find it
>> in 1"), cloth covered and sandwiched with plug of 4 or 5 mm baltic birch plywood in
>> the middle.
>>
>> What's the typical distance diaphragm to diaphram?
>>
>> Thanks for the info,
>>
>> Frank

>Frank, Have a look at http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com/ for an approach
>to using and making a Jecklin Disc.


Thanks, Mike. Interesting reading.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns > wrote:
>Thanks, Scott. This is getting interesting.
>
>With the diffraction spheres, I get the slight increase in HF beam on the 183s, and
>they are splayed out and up as I currently use them.

Try it with and without the spheres. I would probably be happier with the
spheres but try it yourself.

>Mike's link talked about 15" spacing, which is not much less than my current 50cm.
>(And I can move them closer.)

I think 15" is too far but that's also a judgement call and depends on room
placement. I don't like it super-wide either; I like to sit in the balcony.

>Maybe I can start with just a round piece of 1" 703 notched to drop onto my current
>array mounting system.

That would be fine and wouldn't weigh quite so much.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Bill Graham]

Peter Larsen wrote:
> David O. wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 04:46:04 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
>> > wrote:
>
>>>> I guess we're stuck with "miked" & "miking" for the participial
>>>> forms, even though we have the noun "mic."
>
>>> There is no "even though", did you skip your latin class?
>
>> I did. I was learning about comma splices that day.
>
> That is why the "c" gets replaced by a k in the spelling when
> followed by a wovel.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

Isn't a, "wovel" a type of snow shovel?

[PStamler]

On Mar 14, 3:05*pm, "William Sommerwerck" >
wrote:
> >> Ever heard dbx-encoded disks?
> > Yes, I own many, and a working decoder.
> > Yes, they are amazingly good.
> > But ... one does wonder how the feedback-type decoder does
> > as well as it does! One wonders (euphemism for "I wonder") if a
> > true Golden Ear would not hear artifacts cause by the encode-
> > decode cycle.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by a "feedback-type decoder".
>
> A late friend of mine used dbx for live recordings. He said he could hear
> encode/decode artifacts on certain instruments, such as horn. I used dbx for
> many years, but never heard such things. Perhaps I didn't know what to
> listen for.
>
> Over 30 years ago, I brought a dbx II system I'd calibrated for unity
> encode/decode to a golden-eared friend, who designed speakers and
> electronics. I suggested we do a bypass test. We both felt we /would/ be
> able to hear some change or degradation. We did not, even though we knew
> when the dbx was in the circuit.
>
> Of course, there was no tape recorder -- I was trying to see just how
> audible the electronics, and the basic encode/decode processing was. A tape
> recorder might introduce errors that would cause the decoder to misbehave..

And in my experience it did. That was the thing about dbx encoding/
decoding; the encode/decode cycle sounded fine, until you put
something in between the encoder and decoder which needed noise
reduction. Then it didn't sound so good.

Pity; it worked except when you needed it.

Peace,
Paul

[Hank]

In article >,
Harry Lavo > wrote:
>
>"Kip Williams" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> 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.
>
>Nonetheless, "mic" is the proper spelling....and the English tend to get it
>right, while we Americans do not.
>
Not in my book is "mic" any proper abbreviation for "microphone." I
do come from an older generation that learned and used "mike" in the
forties and fifties. To me "mic" is pronounced "mick," and that's
what I see when I see that neologistic spelling.

Or maybe younger folks do talk about "mic(k)s."

Hank

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 05:55:37 +0000 (UTC),
(Hank) wrote:

>In article >,
>Harry Lavo > wrote:
>>
>>"Kip Williams" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>Nonetheless, "mic" is the proper spelling....and the English tend to get it
>>right, while we Americans do not.
>>
>Not in my book is "mic" any proper abbreviation for "microphone." I
>do come from an older generation that learned and used "mike" in the
>forties and fifties. To me "mic" is pronounced "mick," and that's
>what I see when I see that neologistic spelling.
>
>Or maybe younger folks do talk about "mic(k)s."
>
>Hank

Here's how it is. MIC is an abbreviation that designed to fit on a
panel below a socket. It is no more an actual word than is GND or +Ve.
It is not intended for pronunciation.

There is a shortened word - MIKE, which can be declensed as a normal
verb TO MIKE, the gerund of which is MIKING.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

PStamler > wrote:
>And in my experience it did. That was the thing about dbx encoding/
>decoding; the encode/decode cycle sounded fine, until you put
>something in between the encoder and decoder which needed noise
>reduction. Then it didn't sound so good.

Well, the Type II reduction (which was used on quarter-track tapes and LPs)
was a lot more forgiving than the earlier Tupe I system in that regard.
But it did still seem to exaggerate any response or linearity issues in the
chain.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

> And in my experience it did. That was the thing about dbx
> encoding/decoding; the encode/decode cycle sounded fine,
> until you put something in between the encoder and decoder
> which needed noise reduction. Then it didn't sound so good.

> Pity; it worked except when you needed it.

Well, it worked for me. I got a lot of live recordings that would have been
impractical -- and of lower overall quality -- than I could have without it.

[William Sommerwerck]

> Well, the Type II reduction (which was used on quarter-track
> tapes and LPs) was a lot more forgiving than the earlier Tupe I
> system in that regard. But it did still seem to exaggerate any
> response or linearity issues in the chain.

A misunderstanding and an error, here.

The Type I level sensor worked from 20 to 20K, Type II's from 50 to 15K. *
If the deck rolled off above 20Hz (and a lot did/do), the playback wouldn't
track properly. Although dbx warned TEAC about this, TEAC insisted on
putting Type I in their decks, because it wanted to use the "pro" version,
for image reasons. When I worked at Barclay Recording, one of our pro
customers complained about the audible pumping this caused, and our
brilliant technician modified the TEAC's dbx circuitry.

One of the commonest misunderstandings about dbx NR is that it exaggerates
frequency-response errors. IT DOES NOT. It is a single-band system, and
therefore CANNOT exaggerate response errors. (Unless, perhaps, you're
recording solo flute.) If you don't understand this, you need to think it
through.

Multi-band NR (eg, any Dolby system) can and does exaggerate response
errors, though the effect is more one of "shelving".

I'm going to have to dig out the dbx LP with "Last Sleep of the Virgin". The
opening band will blow out your speakers.

* This wasn't the only difference. Type II supposedly had different attack
and release times.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>One of the commonest misunderstandings about dbx NR is that it exaggerates
>frequency-response errors. IT DOES NOT. It is a single-band system, and
>therefore CANNOT exaggerate response errors. (Unless, perhaps, you're
>recording solo flute.) If you don't understand this, you need to think it
>through.

Then why the tracking and pumping issues when the response is non-flat?
Is this a different effect altogether?
--scott

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

[Anahata]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 11:14:16 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>>One of the commonest misunderstandings about dbx NR is that it
>>exaggerates frequency-response errors. IT DOES NOT. It is a single-band
>>system, and therefore CANNOT exaggerate response errors. (Unless,
>>perhaps, you're recording solo flute.) If you don't understand this, you
>>need to think it through.
>
> Then why the tracking and pumping issues when the response is non-flat?
> Is this a different effect altogether? --scott

Frequency reponse errors could easily result in gain mistracking at the
expansion end. Any time the spectrum is dominated by frequencies where
the recording medium isn't flat, the reproduction end will appply a
different amount of gain expansion on playback from what was applied in
recording.

Mr Sommerwerck is correct in the case of the instantaneous spectrum of
any sound. White noise into the system will have its spectrum reshaped by
exactly the frequency response errors of the recording medium and no more.

But for (grossly simplified) example if the recording media has HF
losses, a low pitched sound followed by a high pitched sound at the same
original level will have a greater loudness discrepancy than is accounted
for the the medium's HF loss alone.

--
Anahata
--/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk
+44 (0)1638 720444

[William Sommerwerck]

>> One of the commonest misunderstandings about dbx NR is that
>> it exaggerates frequency-response errors. IT DOES NOT. It is a
>> single-band system, and therefore CANNOT exaggerate response
>> errors. (Unless, perhaps, you're recording solo flute.) If you don't
>> understand this, you need to think it through.

> Then why the tracking and pumping issues when the response
> is non-flat? Is this a different effect altogether?

That's right.

The non-flat response we're talking about is at the low end. If the deck
rolls off below 50Hz, and there's significant material at, say, 30Hz, its
playback level will be "too low" and the expander won't track correctly.

This is why dbx II "reads" the signal (during both recording and playback)
only from 50Hz to 15kHz, on the assumption consumer decks don't have the
wide response of "professional" decks.

Regardless, because dbx is single-band, tracking errors are the same across
the audio band. There are no sub-bands to get out of alignment.

[William Sommerwerck]

> Mr Sommerwerck is correct in the case of the instantaneous spectrum of
> any sound. White noise into the system will have its spectrum reshaped by
> exactly the frequency response errors of the recording medium and no more.
>
> But for (grossly simplified) example if the recording media has HF
> losses, a low pitched sound followed by a high pitched sound at the same
> original level will have a greater loudness discrepancy than is accounted
> for the the medium's HF loss alone.

Correct. The same would apply if a solo flute were playing in a part of the
spectrum where the deck had a bump or dip in the response.

[Bill Graham]

Hank wrote:
> In article >,
> Harry Lavo > wrote:
>>
>> "Kip Williams" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Nonetheless, "mic" is the proper spelling....and the English tend to
>> get it right, while we Americans do not.
>>
> Not in my book is "mic" any proper abbreviation for "microphone." I
> do come from an older generation that learned and used "mike" in the
> forties and fifties. To me "mic" is pronounced "mick," and that's
> what I see when I see that neologistic spelling.
>
> Or maybe younger folks do talk about "mic(k)s."
>
> Hank

I think it originally came from "microphone". Today, it is also used as a
verb, so it has acquired its own seperate meaning....

[graham[_2_]]

"Bill Graham" > wrote in message
...
> Hank wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Harry Lavo > wrote:
>>>
>>> "Kip Williams" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Nonetheless, "mic" is the proper spelling....and the English tend to
>>> get it right, while we Americans do not.
>>>
>> Not in my book is "mic" any proper abbreviation for "microphone." I
>> do come from an older generation that learned and used "mike" in the
>> forties and fifties. To me "mic" is pronounced "mick," and that's
>> what I see when I see that neologistic spelling.
>>
>> Or maybe younger folks do talk about "mic(k)s."
>>
>> Hank
>
> I think it originally came from "microphone".

You don't say!!!
Wow! Who'd have thunk it?

[Bill Graham]

graham wrote:
> "Bill Graham" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hank wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Harry Lavo > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Kip Williams" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Nonetheless, "mic" is the proper spelling....and the English tend
>>>> to get it right, while we Americans do not.
>>>>
>>> Not in my book is "mic" any proper abbreviation for "microphone." I
>>> do come from an older generation that learned and used "mike" in the
>>> forties and fifties. To me "mic" is pronounced "mick," and that's
>>> what I see when I see that neologistic spelling.
>>>
>>> Or maybe younger folks do talk about "mic(k)s."
>>>
>>> Hank
>>
>> I think it originally came from "microphone".
>
> You don't say!!!
> Wow! Who'd have thunk it?

Apparently, many who are posting to this thread.....

[tonewheel]

On Mar 11, 3:11*am, Ralph Barone > wrote:
> In article >,
> *"William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>
> > >> How do you get the bits back in the cable?
>
> > > I poured them carefully in the speaker cone, and set the
> > > amplifier in "reverse". Tomato sauce and vinegar will remove
> > > a stubborn bit-stain from carpet. *If that doesn't work, try blood.
>
> > I'm reminded of a very, very, very old joke about grid-leak detectors.
>
> and Lord help you if the ether leaks out of your Ethernet cables.

The old 10 base T ones weren't too bad, but these days if you have a
blowout on a gigabit ethernet cable the damn thing snakes around like
a fire hose until someone can get close enough to shut off the data
flow. And now I hear they are upping the bandwidth even further to
10G... madness!

[PStamler]

On Mar 24, 8:57*am, tonewheel > wrote:
> On Mar 11, 3:11*am, Ralph Barone > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > *"William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>
> > > >> How do you get the bits back in the cable?
>
> > > > I poured them carefully in the speaker cone, and set the
> > > > amplifier in "reverse". Tomato sauce and vinegar will remove
> > > > a stubborn bit-stain from carpet. *If that doesn't work, try blood.
>
> > > I'm reminded of a very, very, very old joke about grid-leak detectors..
>
> > and Lord help you if the ether leaks out of your Ethernet cables.
>
> The old 10 base T ones weren't too bad, but these days if you have a
> blowout on a gigabit ethernet cable the damn thing snakes around like
> a fire hose until someone can get close enough to shut off the data
> flow. And now I hear they are upping the bandwidth even further to
> 10G... madness!

The zeroes aren't so bad, but the 1s lodge in your skin like
fiberglass and itch like hell.

Peace,
Paul

[O]

In article
>,
PStamler > wrote:

> On Mar 24, 8:57*am, tonewheel > wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 3:11*am, Ralph Barone > wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > *"William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
> >
> > > > >> How do you get the bits back in the cable?
> >
> > > > > I poured them carefully in the speaker cone, and set the
> > > > > amplifier in "reverse". Tomato sauce and vinegar will remove
> > > > > a stubborn bit-stain from carpet. *If that doesn't work, try blood.
> >
> > > > I'm reminded of a very, very, very old joke about grid-leak detectors.
> >
> > > and Lord help you if the ether leaks out of your Ethernet cables.
> >
> > The old 10 base T ones weren't too bad, but these days if you have a
> > blowout on a gigabit ethernet cable the damn thing snakes around like
> > a fire hose until someone can get close enough to shut off the data
> > flow. And now I hear they are upping the bandwidth even further to
> > 10G... madness!
>
> The zeroes aren't so bad, but the 1s lodge in your skin like
> fiberglass and itch like hell.

I've found if you use sans-serif Ethernet cables, the ones have fewer
barbs and sharp edges and itch less. In either case, a shot of
penicillin and a liberal dose of parity-bit salve and silicone snake
poison will cure the worst cases of bit-rash, except for those between
the ears.

-Owen

[John Hood]

Here in Australia, we have digital toilet paper. You use it, then reset the
bits back to zero ...

JH

"tonewheel" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 11, 3:11 am, Ralph Barone > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>>
>> > >> How do you get the bits back in the cable?
>>
>> > > I poured them carefully in the speaker cone, and set the
>> > > amplifier in "reverse". Tomato sauce and vinegar will remove
>> > > a stubborn bit-stain from carpet. If that doesn't work, try blood.
>>
>> > I'm reminded of a very, very, very old joke about grid-leak detectors.
>>
>> and Lord help you if the ether leaks out of your Ethernet cables.
>
> The old 10 base T ones weren't too bad, but these days if you have a
> blowout on a gigabit ethernet cable the damn thing snakes around like
> a fire hose until someone can get close enough to shut off the data
> flow. And now I hear they are upping the bandwidth even further to
> 10G... madness!

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

PStamler wrote:
> On Mar 24, 8:57 am, > wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 3:11 am, Ralph > wrote:
>>
>>> In >,
>>> "William > wrote:
>>
>>>>>> How do you get the bits back in the cable?
>>
>>>>> I poured them carefully in the speaker cone, and set the
>>>>> amplifier in "reverse". Tomato sauce and vinegar will remove
>>>>> a stubborn bit-stain from carpet. If that doesn't work, try blood.
>>
>>>> I'm reminded of a very, very, very old joke about grid-leak detectors.
>>
>>> and Lord help you if the ether leaks out of your Ethernet cables.
>>
>> The old 10 base T ones weren't too bad, but these days if you have a
>> blowout on a gigabit ethernet cable the damn thing snakes around like
>> a fire hose until someone can get close enough to shut off the data
>> flow. And now I hear they are upping the bandwidth even further to
>> 10G... madness!
>
> The zeroes aren't so bad, but the 1s lodge in your skin like
> fiberglass and itch like hell.
>
> Peace,
> Paul


Them bits are polarized. Stand sideways to 'em and they won't itch.

--
Les Cargill