A wee bit of bragging, here's a snippet of what I like to do on sundays O;-)

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Hi Guys,

http://youtu.be/iYukGHPRX5Y

Mixdown nearfield monitored on 1976 KEF Coda's equalized with a Denon DE70
and powered with a NAD 302.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[hank alrich]

Peter Larsen > wrote:

> Hi Guys,
>
> http://youtu.be/iYukGHPRX5Y
>
> Mixdown nearfield monitored on 1976 KEF Coda's equalized with a Denon DE70
> and powered with a NAD 302.

Pretty rare for me to hear something sound that nice via YT. Well done,
Peter.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

hank alrich wrote:

>> http://youtu.be/iYukGHPRX5Y

>> Mixdown nearfield monitored on 1976 KEF Coda's equalized with a
>> Denon DE70 and powered with a NAD 302.

> Pretty rare for me to hear something sound that nice via YT. Well
> done, Peter.

[bowing] Thank you! - it was only intended as my setup documentation, but
happened to mention it for the Talent, and they wanted to able to share it.
It kinda had its own way of fitting into recent threads.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Matt Faunce]

On 10/3/13 4:03 AM, Peter Larsen wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> http://youtu.be/iYukGHPRX5Y
>
> Mixdown nearfield monitored on 1976 KEF Coda's equalized with a Denon DE70
> and powered with a NAD 302.
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

The performance was excellent! I'd love to hear the rest.

--
Matt

[Frank Stearns]

"Peter Larsen" > writes:

>Hi Guys,

>http://youtu.be/iYukGHPRX5Y

>Mixdown nearfield monitored on 1976 KEF Coda's equalized with a Denon DE70
>and powered with a NAD 302.

Very, very nice, Peter. (Great players, too!)

So tell us about the mic'ing? I see something on the piano, then a pair about where
I'd normally place them for a group of this size. Unfortunately, the pan and Youtube
compression is such that in the split second the main pair can be seen, it's
blurred. Preamps?

Again, quite nice. Thanks for posting.

Frank
Mobile Audio


--

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Frank Stearns wrote:
> "Peter Larsen" > writes:
>
>> Hi Guys,
>
>> http://youtu.be/iYukGHPRX5Y
>
>> Mixdown nearfield monitored on 1976 KEF Coda's equalized with a
>> Denon DE70 and powered with a NAD 302.
>
> Very, very nice, Peter. (Great players, too!)
>
> So tell us about the mic'ing? I see something on the piano, then a
> pair about where I'd normally place them for a group of this size.

Schoeps subcardiods, some 40 cm between them and parallel. Josephson C42's
on the piano on a short stereo bar, also parallel. Whomsoever doesn't
understand why the mics are parallel should use the search term "The
Stereophonic Zoom", it is as pr. its recommendations.

> Unfortunately, the pan and Youtube compression is such that in the
> split second the main pair can be seen, it's blurred. Preamps?

The SSM chip, the original one, no buffer stage -> stock R44.

> Again, quite nice. Thanks for posting.

Ah, yes the post: Audition 3, "standard mic eq" of the schoepses and the
C42's, "standard room eq" for the room, Nugens Mono plugin used because of
the separation between the mic pairs and to get rid of some of the random
bass noise that exists near a major railway station.

16 millesconds delay of piano pair. Mic and room eq based on multiple catgut
reocrdings, good catgut has a smooth treble. No dynamic range modification.
Youtubes encoded lowered the piano in the mix, but not so much that I
bothered redoing it. Morale: always evaluate the mix as it appears on the
distribution format.

The piano is a Steinway, the catgut is some old Italian stuff, google knows,
I have read somewhere what is is, but can't remember where and I don't want
to toss possibly incorrect info into the akasha.

A couple of keyboard operator floor-stomps should be audible, they are on my
late brothers old floor standing KEF's, but those DO not seem timid about
low end reproduction.

It was never meant to end up as a music video, but just as my own
documentation of the full concert audiorecording, happened to mention it for
the talent and they wanted to be able to share it. Youtubes copyright robot
thinks copyright still exists on Dvoraks music in spite of the piece being
124 years old and Dvorak dead for 110.

Only 3 short video segments were recorded and this one on impulse when
hearing that Dvorak had found his way to build up a closing chord, albeit
almost beethonianly slow.

> Frank
> Mobile Audio

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[polymod]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Guys,
>
> http://youtu.be/iYukGHPRX5Y
>
> Mixdown nearfield monitored on 1976 KEF Coda's equalized with a Denon DE70
> and powered with a NAD 302.

That was wonderful!
I must say, as a piano tuner, the piano sounded great.
Steinway?

Poly

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill > wrote:

> Peter Larsen wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > http://youtu.be/iYukGHPRX5Y
> >
> > Mixdown nearfield monitored on 1976 KEF Coda's equalized with a Denon DE70
> > and powered with a NAD 302.
> >
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Peter Larsen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Sounds like buttah. :) Remarkable, given what Youtube doubtless left
> out.
>
> --
> Les Cargill

You got that right. I always appreciate the reminder that regardless
what will be imposed in a repro chain, quality speaks through it all.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Peter Larsen wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> http://youtu.be/iYukGHPRX5Y
>
> Mixdown nearfield monitored on 1976 KEF Coda's equalized with a Denon DE70
> and powered with a NAD 302.
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
>
>
>
>
>
>


Sounds like buttah. :) Remarkable, given what Youtube doubtless left
out.

--
Les Cargill

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
...

> http://youtu.be/iYukGHPRX5Y

> Mixdown nearfield monitored on 1976 KEF Coda's equalized with a Denon DE70
> and powered with a NAD 302.

Probably nice sounding but very old school. Technology has moved on in
clearly audible ways with regards to the speakers and the equalizer. AFAIK
the amp was very clean and sonically transparent so in some sense it can't
be improved on, but the same level of performance is now widely available in
equipment that is smaller, cheaper, lighter and far more widely available.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
> ...

>> http://youtu.be/iYukGHPRX5Y

>> Mixdown nearfield monitored on 1976 KEF Coda's equalized with a
>> Denon DE70 and powered with a NAD 302.

> Probably nice sounding but very old school. Technology has moved on in
> clearly audible ways with regards to the speakers and the equalizer.
> AFAIK the amp was very clean and sonically transparent so in some
> sense it can't be improved on, but the same level of performance is
> now widely available in equipment that is smaller, cheaper, lighter
> and far more widely available.

Yes. But no reason to discard existing good stuff that works and is a BBC
design, except that the cross-over probably is simplified. Also the original
Coda design is better for wall mounting than the Q15's. Otoh those don't
need (as much) EQ.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> "Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> http://youtu.be/iYukGHPRX5Y
>
>> Mixdown nearfield monitored on 1976 KEF Coda's equalized with a Denon DE70
>> and powered with a NAD 302.
>
> Probably nice sounding but very old school. Technology has moved on in
> clearly audible ways with regards to the speakers and the equalizer. AFAIK
> the amp was very clean and sonically transparent so in some sense it can't
> be improved on, but the same level of performance is now widely available in
> equipment that is smaller, cheaper, lighter and far more widely available.
>
>

I bet what he has is closer to him, though. Sometimes that's
all that matters.

--
Les Cargill

[Gary Eickmeier]

Les Cargill wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>> "Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> http://youtu.be/iYukGHPRX5Y
>>
>>> Mixdown nearfield monitored on 1976 KEF Coda's equalized with a
>>> Denon DE70 and powered with a NAD 302.
>>
>> Probably nice sounding but very old school. Technology has moved on
>> in clearly audible ways with regards to the speakers and the
>> equalizer. AFAIK the amp was very clean and sonically transparent so
>> in some sense it can't be improved on, but the same level of
>> performance is now widely available in equipment that is smaller,
>> cheaper, lighter and far more widely available.
>
> I bet what he has is closer to him, though. Sometimes that's
> all that matters.

I would be curious about two things. First, who did the video? Did you
collaborate with them on the sound track in the production of it? My method
is, of course, double system sound in which the audio recording is synced
with the video in editing - which would, of course, mske the perspective
completely different between the video and audio in this particular example.
Wish I could have seen the mikes.

Two, curious how you folks are monitoring the sound while watching this
YouTube video. Certainly not on computer speakers?? I have only recently
hooked up my computer sound to my receiver with some optical cable so that I
can play my mixes etc on my big system in another room. Watching this video
makes me want to pipe the sound out there and go listen to it as pure audio
and check how it sounds. I don't know what the losses would be with the
highly compressed sound on YT, but it would be interesting to compare it to
CD quality sound.

You inspire me to put one or two of my videos done this way on YouTube or
Vimeo and see what happens. Mine would show the miking as well, which might
be fodder for discussion and a great way to show what we are talking about
for all of us.

Perhaps some others have videos made of your sessions that would show your
work in action?

Gary Eickmeier

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> I would be curious about two things. First, who did the video? Did you
> collaborate with them on the sound track in the production of it? My
> method is, of course, double system sound in which the audio
> recording is synced with the video in editing - which would, of
> course, mske the perspective completely different between the video
> and audio in this particular example. Wish I could have seen the
> mikes.

I'm curious about two things: why did you not read my posts about it and why
did you not read the text on the video screen?

> Gary Eickmeier

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Gary Eickmeier]

Peter Larsen wrote:
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>> I would be curious about two things. First, who did the video? Did
>> you collaborate with them on the sound track in the production of
>> it? My method is, of course, double system sound in which the audio
>> recording is synced with the video in editing - which would, of
>> course, mske the perspective completely different between the video
>> and audio in this particular example. Wish I could have seen the
>> mikes.
>
> I'm curious about two things: why did you not read my posts about it
> and why did you not read the text on the video screen?

Ah yes, sorry, didn't mean to offend. So you are a video man as well as
audio. Usually rare in my experience. Arny Krueger does it. But usually in a
session such as this it is difficult to pay attention to both. The engineer
that I work with has collaborated with me to shoot and edit the video using
his sound in the mix, but he does not do video. On my local concert band I
keep giving my audio track to the band member who shoots video of their
concerts but she doesn't know what to do with it and just uses her camera
sound from the balcony!

Anyway, your video is illuminating to me that an audio guy can do this and I
thought it would be a worthwhile topic.

Gary Eickmeier

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

>> I'm curious about two things: why did you not read my posts about it
>> and why did you not read the text on the video screen?

> Ah yes, sorry, didn't mean to offend.

No offense done nor taken, it just didn't make a lot of sense to write it
all again.

> So you are a video man as well as audio. Usually rare in my experience.
> Arny Krueger does it. But usually in a session such as this it is
> difficult
> to pay attention to both.

That's why God invented headroom and 24 bit recording and why it is is good
practice to be there early, I aim for always arriving 2 hours before
showtime. This however was and is just a matinee recording and the video was
just shot for internal documentation, all in all 6 minutes.

> The engineer that I work with has collaborated with me to shoot
> and edit the video using his sound in the mix, but he does not do
> video. On my local concert band I keep giving my audio track to the
> band member who shoots video of their concerts but she doesn't know
> what to do with it and just uses her camera sound from the balcony!

Vegas starts quite affordable for the old version sans dvd-burn. I did
scratch my head and occasionally still do. I do miss being able to enter the
track offset in digits, but perhaps it can be done and so will she, because
she can't just use her balcony audio as sync, it is is too late and needs to
be advanced in time. She may be well off by supplementing with a camera on
each side of the room, one with a fixed setup and being operator on the
other. Remember to get reasonably tall stands, household quality video
cameras have autofocus and love the heads of the first row.

> Anyway, your video is illuminating to me that an audio guy can do
> this and I thought it would be a worthwhile topic.

The Social Media are here, it is an unavoidable topic. I happened to mention
to the Talent, and Trio Con Brio ar talented and deserve a capital T, that I
had a few minutes of dogma-video, ie. handheld. Oh, if please they could get
it for use on Social Media as soon as possible. I didn't want to give him
the toy camera's sound and thus rushed getting the audio done. Having made
very many recordings in that wonderful but difficult room I use the same
basic Audition 3 session and just replace the files, the only things that
vary are level and solo mic offset.

I was lucky to swap my old Amiga expansion cards for a Dell Precision 490
with a 3 GHz Xeon earlier this year, with Windows 7, 8 gigabyte ram and a
pair of Velociraptors in a stripe set + a bundle of external disks it is
great for editing video on, albeit not designed for silence. Such machines
tend to be very cheap when the go for sale after being replaced since they
are not attractive in the household, I bought a second one yesterday, albeit
stripped down to 2 gigabyte ram when decommisioned, for DKK 500, that's
about USD 85. Perhaps I'll get the optional extra Xeon for it .... but a
5160 is not cheap over the counter and I probably NEED the Dell mounting and
fana kit so it is not just "any 160", I'll need to check the toy budget ...

Anyway, the video is new for me and it is not promised to be anything but
documentation or "youtubeable", it is way out of my budget to get three
identical hd cameras, also it just happened without at all being planned, so
it is a JVC - the best thought out, but lens is unimpressive - a Panasonic,
its software has a silliness and a Toshiba, it is full HD but monophonic and
being second hand its software CD breaks on 64 bit windows 7, also it uses a
file format that requires conversion to end up in a format the edit
software, being the old, xp compatible, version can use.

It is possible to do both, but it is a lot of work, quite tiring and takes
up a tremendous amount of disk space. Also it requires a well thought ought
workflow ensuring that files DO get copyied, DO get put in proper folders
and DO get renamed, always put text identifyer and milspec date in the name
of mediafiles, do not allow files with identical names into your file vault.

I didn't have a plan for all this when thrown into it because a
summerfestival asked "Can you do video too? - we'd appreciate that" and
ended up loosing a concerts video-files because of not having a well thought
out vault- and work-procedure in place. I thought I had copied them to the
vault because their folder was there, but I had not gotten them copied to
the folder. Cameras only do a fast format, you don't even need IBAS, but you
also don't need IBAS when the disk is 60 percent full again before you
notice something missing .... NSA otoh probably CAN recover the previous
file, but they don't seem to have a sales organisation for their data
rescue, duplicaton and backup service in place yet.

> Gary Eickmeier

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Gary Eickmeier]

Peter Larsen wrote:
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>>> I'm curious about two things: why did you not read my posts about it
>>> and why did you not read the text on the video screen?
>
>> Ah yes, sorry, didn't mean to offend.
>
> No offense done nor taken, it just didn't make a lot of sense to
> write it all again.
>
>> So you are a video man as well as audio. Usually rare in my
>> experience. Arny Krueger does it. But usually in a session such as
>> this it is difficult
>> to pay attention to both.
>
> That's why God invented headroom and 24 bit recording and why it is
> is good practice to be there early, I aim for always arriving 2 hours
> before showtime. This however was and is just a matinee recording and
> the video was just shot for internal documentation, all in all 6
> minutes.
>> The engineer that I work with has collaborated with me to shoot
>> and edit the video using his sound in the mix, but he does not do
>> video. On my local concert band I keep giving my audio track to the
>> band member who shoots video of their concerts but she doesn't know
>> what to do with it and just uses her camera sound from the balcony!
>
> Vegas starts quite affordable for the old version sans dvd-burn. I did
> scratch my head and occasionally still do. I do miss being able to
> enter the track offset in digits, but perhaps it can be done and so
> will she, because she can't just use her balcony audio as sync, it is
> is too late and needs to be advanced in time. She may be well off by
> supplementing with a camera on each side of the room, one with a
> fixed setup and being operator on the other. Remember to get
> reasonably tall stands, household quality video cameras have
> autofocus and love the heads of the first row.
>> Anyway, your video is illuminating to me that an audio guy can do
>> this and I thought it would be a worthwhile topic.
>
> The Social Media are here, it is an unavoidable topic. I happened to
> mention to the Talent, and Trio Con Brio ar talented and deserve a
> capital T, that I had a few minutes of dogma-video, ie. handheld. Oh,
> if please they could get it for use on Social Media as soon as
> possible. I didn't want to give him the toy camera's sound and thus
> rushed getting the audio done. Having made very many recordings in
> that wonderful but difficult room I use the same basic Audition 3
> session and just replace the files, the only things that vary are
> level and solo mic offset.
> I was lucky to swap my old Amiga expansion cards for a Dell Precision
> 490 with a 3 GHz Xeon earlier this year, with Windows 7, 8 gigabyte
> ram and a pair of Velociraptors in a stripe set + a bundle of
> external disks it is great for editing video on, albeit not designed
> for silence. Such machines tend to be very cheap when the go for sale
> after being replaced since they are not attractive in the household,
> I bought a second one yesterday, albeit stripped down to 2 gigabyte
> ram when decommisioned, for DKK 500, that's about USD 85. Perhaps
> I'll get the optional extra Xeon for it .... but a 5160 is not cheap
> over the counter and I probably NEED the Dell mounting and fana kit
> so it is not just "any 160", I'll need to check the toy budget ...
> Anyway, the video is new for me and it is not promised to be anything
> but documentation or "youtubeable", it is way out of my budget to get
> three identical hd cameras, also it just happened without at all
> being planned, so it is a JVC - the best thought out, but lens is
> unimpressive - a Panasonic, its software has a silliness and a
> Toshiba, it is full HD but monophonic and being second hand its
> software CD breaks on 64 bit windows 7, also it uses a file format
> that requires conversion to end up in a format the edit software,
> being the old, xp compatible, version can use.
> It is possible to do both, but it is a lot of work, quite tiring and
> takes up a tremendous amount of disk space. Also it requires a well
> thought ought workflow ensuring that files DO get copyied, DO get put
> in proper folders and DO get renamed, always put text identifyer and
> milspec date in the name of mediafiles, do not allow files with
> identical names into your file vault.
> I didn't have a plan for all this when thrown into it because a
> summerfestival asked "Can you do video too? - we'd appreciate that"
> and ended up loosing a concerts video-files because of not having a
> well thought out vault- and work-procedure in place. I thought I had
> copied them to the vault because their folder was there, but I had
> not gotten them copied to the folder. Cameras only do a fast format,
> you don't even need IBAS, but you also don't need IBAS when the disk
> is 60 percent full again before you notice something missing .... NSA
> otoh probably CAN recover the previous file, but they don't seem to
> have a sales organisation for their data rescue, duplicaton and
> backup service in place yet.
>> Gary Eickmeier
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

You are losing me in some of your terms, but thanks very much for the
description of your workflow. It seems that you are shooting on a camera
with internal disc memory and your syncing the sound up later in Vegas is
basically what I do in Premiere. I can't comment much on what you are doing
because there are a lot of differences that I don't understand, so let me
just describe my workflow a little.

First, the reason I say we don't usually do both during an important paid
gig is that you have to be in two places at once to do it right. Hence, my
question about collaborating with a video shooter. In a less audio oriented
job I will just place a Zoom H2n on a stand to get some decent sound on AGC,
set it recording, and go back to my video camera for the duration. I would
love to post one of these for the group's amusement when I get back to the
office and can cut out a section and upload it.

On memory, these little SDHC cards are a lifesaver and a miracle. I use them
in both my audio and my video shooting. But the most amazing miracle to an
old film guy is the ability for all devices to sync with each other for over
an hour so that we can edit them all together in one project - the video in
my case. I will take some sound from the sound board on a little digital
recorder, record some myself up front, and of course sycn it all up with the
sound on the video by lining up the waveforms and checking with lip sync
when someone talks just to make sure. Your comment about the time delay when
shooting from farther away is well taken. It isn't much, but we have to
consider it.

So I get home or to the office and download all files into one folder on the
edit system for building the video. Main problem, you need a modern, fast,
Windows 7 64 bit or Mac equivalent to edit this AVCHD stuff. My system at
home is fine for audio, but not capable of modern video, so I use the office
equipment. Video production company.

Sound is underappreciated in most video projects, noticed only if it is bad.
Even watching my masterpiece in the home theater I do not notice the imaging
like I do with pure audio. I am working on trying some discrete surround
sound with concert videos to get the ambience and audience applause where it
belongs but that does complicate things!

Anyway thanks and great to commiserate with someone who is into both audio
and video.

Gary Eickmeier