Gray Mastering

[Frank Stearns]

But perhaps the overall damage is already done. I've been hearing
more and more of what I call a "gray" sound across a wider range of
releases.

"Gray" sound is a bit like over-spiced food. Used in excess,
super-spicing makes your mouth go "gray" such that you can no longer
discern subtleties, delicate nuance, or delightful taste surprises
hidden within the cuisine.

Something similar has happened with too many mastered projects. Even
though some mastering engineers profess the utmost care for the sound
they handle, I'm becoming convinced that sadly many have no idea what
that means.

I sent a recent project back to the mastering house *three times*,
****ing off many people in the process. (Though, to their credit,
each time the client thought "everything sounded great" they could
eventually hear what I had been complaining about as each revision came back.

In the first attempt, the wrong noise shaping had been used (way too
much with a steep curve, which exaggerated screeching all the way around -- noise
shaping can affect sonics). In revision 2, some overreaching HF screech
EQ got removed. In revision 3, approximately half of the analog signal
processing was bypassed entirely, helping to further lower the
newly-added distortion.

Finally, at least, my ears stopped bleeding.

My ongoing question to the engineer had been didn't you hear any of
these issues while you mastered???

Even after 3 tries it was not what it should have been. It
became (to the client) diminishing returns, and the mastering house
had, in their own estimation, done everything I'd asked for -- except
bring back fully the depth and sparkle that I'd sent them. They
apparently simply could not hear the difference, and the sound had
thus been "grayed". The sound had become dimensionally flat and musically
not as interesting.

The mastering gear, monitors, or ears apparently could not resolve
what the hell I was ranting about. Was I being too picky? Asking too
much from 44.1/16? Too crazy in general?

I didn't think so, as I have heard (and own) some stunning CDs with
the qualities I aspire to get in my own work. And in playing back
this recent project for laymen (but on good monitors in a good room)
they each could readily detect the before and not-so-good after.

But it's not just my current project. I'm hearing something similar
in more and more "modern" mastering jobs. Potential faults on
my end are easily taken out of the equation by periodically playing
any one of those several amazing CDs through the same system. They
continue to be good-sounding.

And, these better CDs have fairly high crest factors. With the
right mastering ear and mastering gear, an elevated level can
apparently be done without ruining too much.

So what have we wrought? What has an apparent overall lack of musical
sensitivity and aesthetic in society at large done to those who now
call themselves mastering engineers?

I'm curious as to your own experiences with your own releases. Do you feel a growing
disservice from mastering in general, or have you found a few gems
scattered among the gravel? If so, I'd love to know who you prefer to
use. (The mastering house noted above came highly recommended and had
some bigger-name clients, but I'll never go near them again.)

Thanks in advance for your comments.
rant off.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns > wrote:
>I sent a recent project back to the mastering house *three times*,
>****ing off many people in the process. (Though, to their credit,
>each time the client thought "everything sounded great" they could
>eventually hear what I had been complaining about as each revision came back.

So, why weren't you at the mastering session?

Unless you absolutely know the mastering engineer and he knows exactly
what your tastes are, you really want to attend the session because
the sooner you catch things, the better.

>My ongoing question to the engineer had been didn't you hear any of
>these issues while you mastered???

He did, but bright and heavily limited is fashionable.

>Even after 3 tries it was not what it should have been. It
>became (to the client) diminishing returns, and the mastering house
>had, in their own estimation, done everything I'd asked for -- except
>bring back fully the depth and sparkle that I'd sent them. They
>apparently simply could not hear the difference, and the sound had
>thus been "grayed". The sound had become dimensionally flat and musically
>not as interesting.

And you won't get that unless you can sit down with the mastering engineer
and go one step a time through the chain so you can point out exactly what
it is that you want. The mastering engineer is likely to be doing what is
fashionable right now rather than what you want, unless you're there.

>I didn't think so, as I have heard (and own) some stunning CDs with
>the qualities I aspire to get in my own work. And in playing back
>this recent project for laymen (but on good monitors in a good room)
>they each could readily detect the before and not-so-good after.

Well, find the mastering engineers that did those projects, and call them!
But even doing that, you want to attend the session.

>I'm curious as to your own experiences with your own releases. Do you feel a growing
>disservice from mastering in general, or have you found a few gems
>scattered among the gravel? If so, I'd love to know who you prefer to
>use. (The mastering house noted above came highly recommended and had
>some bigger-name clients, but I'll never go near them again.)

I call Don Grossinger. It took many years of working with him before I got
to the point where I was just willing to send him a couple reels of tape and
have him do it unattended, though.

I remember being at Europadisc with him when I first got him to disable
the Neumann limiter he had in the desk....
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "He did, but bright and heavily limited is fashionable. "

It may be "fashionable" - but he's better not be doing
those things unless the client specifically ASKED FOR
IT."

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "He did, but bright and heavily limited is fashionable. "

It may be "fashionable" - but he'd better not be doing
those things unless the client specifically ASKED FOR
IT."

[geoff]

On 03/10/2015 15:17, wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote: "He did, but bright and heavily limited is fashionable. "
>
> It may be "fashionable" - but he's better not be doing
> those things unless the client specifically ASKED FOR
> IT."
>

They USUALLY DO, or complain if it's not. It's the likes of US that try
to convince them otherwise.

geoff

[geoff]

On 03/10/2015 15:19, wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote: "He did, but bright and heavily limited is fashionable. "
>
> It may be "fashionable" - but he'd better not be doing
> those things unless the client specifically ASKED FOR
> IT."
>

You said that already. Flat-line sausage Hyper-posting ?

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/2/2015 7:16 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
> I sent a recent project back to the mastering house*three times*,
> ****ing off many people in the process. (Though, to their credit,
> each time the client thought "everything sounded great" they could
> eventually hear what I had been complaining about as each revision came back.
>
> In the first attempt, the wrong noise shaping had been used (way too
> much with a steep curve, which exaggerated screeching all the way around -- noise
> shaping can affect sonics). In revision 2, some overreaching HF screech
> EQ got removed. In revision 3, approximately half of the analog signal
> processing was bypassed entirely, helping to further lower the
> newly-added distortion.

Why have it mastered at all? Did it need any improvement that you
couldn't make yourself? If it sounded great before mastering, why not
just send it directly to the pressing plant and save some trouble and
money? Was there something specific that you wanted the mastering house
to do and they did something else instead?

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

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "On 10/2/2015 7:16 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
> I sent a recent project back to the mastering house*three times*,
> ****ing off many people in the process. (Though, to their credit,
> each time the client thought "everything sounded great" they could
> eventually hear what I had been complaining about as each revision came back.
>
> In the first attempt, the wrong noise shaping had been used (way too
> much with a steep curve, which exaggerated screeching all the way around -- noise
> shaping can affect sonics). In revision 2, some overreaching HF screech
> EQ got removed. In revision 3, approximately half of the analog signal
> processing was bypassed entirely, helping to further lower the
> newly-added distortion.

Why have it mastered at all? Did it need any improvement that you
couldn't make yourself? If it sounded great before mastering, why not
just send it directly to the pressing plant and save some trouble and
money? Was there something specific that you wanted the mastering house
to do and they did something else instead?

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

Finally, something you and I see eye to eye on! :)

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/3/2015 7:00 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 10/2/2015 7:16 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
>> I sent a recent project back to the mastering house*three times*,
>> ****ing off many people in the process. (Though, to their credit,
>> each time the client thought "everything sounded great" they could
>> eventually hear what I had been complaining about as each revision
>> came back.
>>
>> In the first attempt, the wrong noise shaping had been used (way too
>> much with a steep curve, which exaggerated screeching all the way
>> around -- noise
>> shaping can affect sonics). In revision 2, some overreaching HF screech
>> EQ got removed. In revision 3, approximately half of the analog signal
>> processing was bypassed entirely, helping to further lower the
>> newly-added distortion.
>
> Why have it mastered at all? Did it need any improvement that you
> couldn't make yourself? If it sounded great before mastering, why not
> just send it directly to the pressing plant and save some trouble and
> money?
>
+1

This has been my practice for decades. But, one still needs to know the
chain of events at the pressing plant. The better ones will deliver a
good, unadulterated product that reflects what you sent them.

--
Best regards,

Neil

[Frank Stearns]

Mike Rivers > writes:

>On 10/2/2015 7:16 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
>> I sent a recent project back to the mastering house*three times*,
>> ****ing off many people in the process. (Though, to their credit,
>> each time the client thought "everything sounded great" they could
>> eventually hear what I had been complaining about as each revision came back.
>>
>> In the first attempt, the wrong noise shaping had been used (way too
>> much with a steep curve, which exaggerated screeching all the way around -- noise
>> shaping can affect sonics). In revision 2, some overreaching HF screech
>> EQ got removed. In revision 3, approximately half of the analog signal
>> processing was bypassed entirely, helping to further lower the
>> newly-added distortion.

>Why have it mastered at all? Did it need any improvement that you
>couldn't make yourself? If it sounded great before mastering, why not
>just send it directly to the pressing plant and save some trouble and
>money? Was there something specific that you wanted the mastering house
>to do and they did something else instead?

Sure, good question.

A lot of stuff that I do is not mastered and I do the basics of basic mastering
in-house. However, GOOD mastering IS worth the hassle and expense.

- With the right tools, the crest can be lifted more than what I can without
doing damage.

- A good mastering engineer can pick up on things that you might have been
overlooking simply because you've been so close to the project for such a long time
-- the old "fresh set of ears" thing.

I'd probably be fine mastering my own stuff at a high mark IF I had the tools, and
if clients had 6-12 months available to step away from the project. But neither is
realistic.

A few times I've had some excellent results with mastering. I deeply regret not
using the good guy I've used in the past for this project, but it wasn't really my
call. It's a very long and boring backstory as to how that happened -- a lot having
to do with me being 1000 miles away and the other guy I'd used before not having
some of the very handy DDP tools that make long-distance mastering feasible.

But now that I've been through this most recent round, I'm hearing more and more in
general of what I heard on this project. It's almost as if mastering folks have all
recently settled on exactly the same tool set and use the same approach -- a monkey
see/monkey do kind of thing, because they don't know any better and/or haven't heard
a cross-section of musical genres. That's my concern, perhaps even a heads up for
others.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Neil > wrote:
>On 10/3/2015 7:00 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>>
>> Why have it mastered at all? Did it need any improvement that you
>> couldn't make yourself? If it sounded great before mastering, why not
>> just send it directly to the pressing plant and save some trouble and
>> money?
>
>This has been my practice for decades. But, one still needs to know the
>chain of events at the pressing plant. The better ones will deliver a
>good, unadulterated product that reflects what you sent them.

I want a second set of ears to listen to things, and I want someone else
to worry about all the subcode bits being correct and the fades flowing
properly. And I want someone else I can blame who will put up the cost
of re-pressing if that goes wrong.

Now that pressing plants can work with CD-R duping masters, and everyone
has stopped using emphasis, the number of things that can go wrong are
far fewer than they used to be. Even so, though, I like having the
insurance, and sometimes that includes someone telling me there's a
dropout somewhere that I hadn't noticed.

But I want to be there and watch what is going on, and that includes
having them line up the tape tones right in front of me if I'm supplying
an analogue master.
--scott


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

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

>Frank Stearns > wrote:
>>I sent a recent project back to the mastering house *three times*,
>>****ing off many people in the process. (Though, to their credit,
>>each time the client thought "everything sounded great" they could
>>eventually hear what I had been complaining about as each revision came back.

>So, why weren't you at the mastering session?

Normally, I would have been. But relocating to a rural setting has made such travel
awkward at best. I was in the loop remotely for another project which turned out
reasonably well -- but that mastering guy was in New York, and the clients wanted
something local to them (Portland, 2500 miles from NY, 1000 miles from me).

Besides, after several pre-project email exchanges, reviews of other projects,
testimonials, etc, confidence was high that we'd get something good.

>Unless you absolutely know the mastering engineer and he knows exactly
>what your tastes are, you really want to attend the session because
>the sooner you catch things, the better.

That's potentially a two-edged sword. I'm not sure I want "my tastes" possibly
derailing the guy from what he supposedly does best. I'm perfectly willing to accept
something done better. My ego would not be bruised because I hadn't thought of
something. I just don't want something worse! :)


>>My ongoing question to the engineer had been didn't you hear any of
>>these issues while you mastered???

>He did, but bright and heavily limited is fashionable.

That's true, but I do think one redeeming thing about this place was that they
didn't always do that. I think there was something in his room, monitors,
or processing methods that let this get by.

>>Even after 3 tries it was not what it should have been. It
>>became (to the client) diminishing returns, and the mastering house
>>had, in their own estimation, done everything I'd asked for -- except
>>bring back fully the depth and sparkle that I'd sent them. They
>>apparently simply could not hear the difference, and the sound had
>>thus been "grayed". The sound had become dimensionally flat and musically
>>not as interesting.

>And you won't get that unless you can sit down with the mastering engineer
>and go one step a time through the chain so you can point out exactly what
>it is that you want. The mastering engineer is likely to be doing what is
>fashionable right now rather than what you want, unless you're there.

Well, I'd be somewhat hesitant to start having him pull apart his chain. Who knows
-- with his room and monitors, I too might /not/ have heard these issues to begin
with while on site, and then, later, upon review in my room, the fingers start going
back and forth..."You were here, you heard it, so what's the problem?" kind of
thing.

As it was, he was willing to go through 3 iterations without additional charge.

>>I didn't think so, as I have heard (and own) some stunning CDs with
>>the qualities I aspire to get in my own work. And in playing back
>>this recent project for laymen (but on good monitors in a good room)
>>they each could readily detect the before and not-so-good after.

>Well, find the mastering engineers that did those projects, and call them!
>But even doing that, you want to attend the session.

Unfortunately, Doug Sax has passed; not sure of the current state of the Mastering
Lab, and I doubt my clients could have afforded them in any event.


>>I'm curious as to your own experiences with your own releases. Do you feel a growing
>>disservice from mastering in general, or have you found a few gems
>>scattered among the gravel? If so, I'd love to know who you prefer to
>>use. (The mastering house noted above came highly recommended and had
>>some bigger-name clients, but I'll never go near them again.)

>I call Don Grossinger. It took many years of working with him before I got
>to the point where I was just willing to send him a couple reels of tape and
>have him do it unattended, though.

Okay, thanks.

>I remember being at Europadisc with him when I first got him to disable
>the Neumann limiter he had in the desk....

See, this is an underlying thing that's bothering me. If anything, the mastering
folks ought to be the supreme minimalists, hopefully understanding that even if a
piece of gear isn't actively "doing something" it will color the sound. The thinking
should be that of only adding something if really needed.

Some work that way, but a growing trend seems to be "just leave it all in the signal
path, turn it all on, and then rock-on, dude." (Shudder.)

In the later revisions of this project, the guy pulled analog and digital pieces out
of the chain. At least at that point my ears stopped hurting. I'm still incredulous
he didn't hear those issues from the beginning.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/3/2015 10:40 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
> In the later revisions of this project, the guy pulled analog and digital pieces out
> of the chain. At least at that point my ears stopped hurting. I'm still incredulous
> he didn't hear those issues from the beginning.

I wonder if the problem was in his D/A and A/D converters. He might have
a high-falootin' precision mastering D/A converter as the final link,
but when it comes to hooking up analog processors, maybe not so hot.

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

[Frank Stearns]

Mike Rivers > writes:

>On 10/3/2015 10:40 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
>> In the later revisions of this project, the guy pulled analog and digital pieces out
>> of the chain. At least at that point my ears stopped hurting. I'm still incredulous
>> he didn't hear those issues from the beginning.

>I wonder if the problem was in his D/A and A/D converters. He might have
>a high-falootin' precision mastering D/A converter as the final link,
>but when it comes to hooking up analog processors, maybe not so hot.

Good summation. He had Lavry Gold D-A and A-D, but then in Revision 3 one of the
devices that got yanked from the analog side was a 3-band compressor.

My guess is that the thing was chock full of TLO7x chips. They're super cheap -- so
when you need 100 of them in a design you can keep that portion of the parts budget
well under $10. Also, they take very little power, which means you can stick with a
much cheaper power supply.

But I've never been fond of the cumulative effects of TLO7x sonics, even in designs
optimized for them. Back in the analog days, I'd often replace them with something
else and be much happier (though dealing with power issues could be pain).

"I'm not really using this compressor, so I guess I'll take it out of the circuit,"
he said.

Yes, indeed. Why didn't we start there?

Sigh.

Frank
Mobile Audio


--

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns > wrote:
>
>Good summation. He had Lavry Gold D-A and A-D, but then in Revision 3 one of the
>devices that got yanked from the analog side was a 3-band compressor.

Well, there's question one: why was there a 3-band compressor in the signal
path? Doing multiband compression in the analogue world is pretty difficult
and that's actually one of the things best left on the digital side, if in
fact you actually need it. But I think of multiband compression as a thing
you use to repair a badly unbalanced mix, rather than a thing you just keep
routinely in the chain.

If you're not using it, take it out. That's what the patchbay is for.

>My guess is that the thing was chock full of TLO7x chips. They're super cheap -- so
>when you need 100 of them in a design you can keep that portion of the parts budget
>well under $10. Also, they take very little power, which means you can stick with a
>much cheaper power supply.
>
>But I've never been fond of the cumulative effects of TLO7x sonics, even in designs
>optimized for them. Back in the analog days, I'd often replace them with something
>else and be much happier (though dealing with power issues could be pain).

Like all monolithic op-amps, they can perform well or they can perform badly
depending on the situation. Look inside the Studer 69-series mixing consoles
and you will see the nastiest, most awful 301 op-amps... but in the end the
console actually sounds pretty good because the people that designed it were
aware of the components' limitations.

You'll find a TL074 running as a unity-gain follower is pretty transparent,
even with a thousand stages in a chain. You'll find the same TL074 set up
with 40 dB of gain just sounds horribly grainy. Like the doctor said when
a man complained that his arm hurt when he bent it hard, "don't do that."

>"I'm not really using this compressor, so I guess I'll take it out of the circuit,"
>he said.
>
>Yes, indeed. Why didn't we start there?

So, what else was in the chain that he wasn't using? I would in fact expect
that to be the number one philosophy of the mastering engineer, to take things
out.

Hell, I have worked with mastering guys who used completely unbalanced
processing chains and unbalanced banana plug patch bays so that they could
remove a few balancing stages here and there.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

snips

>Hell, I have worked with mastering guys who used completely unbalanced
>processing chains and unbalanced banana plug patch bays so that they could
>remove a few balancing stages here and there.

Exactly. It's this kind of fanatical attention to detail that I expect, especially
from mastering folks.

But this comes around to a part of my original thesis that I perhaps did not state
as clearly as I should: do we now have a generation of people so unaware of what
real instruments sound like, or what is possible to experience with really good
reproduced sound, that "mediocre" is accepted as the norm?

Unfortunately, this might too often be the case. And if you try to get someone color
blind to the color blue understand the color subtleties of the sky or an alpine
lake, and how those missing colors work with others in the scene, you might be
wasting your breath.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/4/2015 10:22 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
> But this comes around to a part of my original thesis that I perhaps did not state
> as clearly as I should: do we now have a generation of people so unaware of what
> real instruments sound like, or what is possible to experience with really good
> reproduced sound, that "mediocre" is accepted as the norm?

I think that they think they're doing the right thing. A friend of mine
sent a master tape off to a reputable mastering house, and when she
listened to the reference lacquer, it was brighter than the tape and had
a good bit more reverb. When she called and told them what they did and
why, the answer was "Oh, I always boost the highs and add reverb to
female folky country singers." Maybe that worked for Kitty Wells.


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns > wrote:
>
>But this comes around to a part of my original thesis that I perhaps did not state
>as clearly as I should: do we now have a generation of people so unaware of what
>real instruments sound like, or what is possible to experience with really good
>reproduced sound, that "mediocre" is accepted as the norm?

That's part of it, but I don't think that's necessarily the problem here.
I think a lot of the problem is that we have a generation of engineers who
came up outside the studio system and did not have the benefit of learning
from other engineers, who learned things pretty much on their own by trial
and error.

This isn't entirely bad, but it HAS resulted in a world where any bozo off
the street can hang up a shingle and call himself a mastering engineer
without any previous experience at all.

On the other hand, some of those people have the chance to become very good
and to bring a different perspective in. But it will also take them some
time to get that way and I don't want to be paying for their time to do so.

But, it's true that in order to track, record, or master, you need to have
in your mind a vision of what the final product is supposed to sound like.
And, in the case of acoustic music, that is a very specific thing with a
common reference and it hard to argue that you want a cello to sound
different than a cello sounds.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/4/2015 3:04 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> This isn't entirely bad, but it HAS resulted in a world where any bozo off
> the street can hang up a shingle and call himself a mastering engineer
> without any previous experience at all.

No mics? No room? OK, you can be a Mastering Engineer.

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

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/4/2015 10:22 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
> But this comes around to a part of my original thesis that I perhaps did not state
> as clearly as I should: do we now have a generation of people so unaware of what
> real instruments sound like, or what is possible to experience with really good
> reproduced sound, that "mediocre" is accepted as the norm?
>
Taking a step back, let's not overlook that there has *always* been a
huge range of audio quality in recordings, regardless of the genre,
regardless of the talent, regardless of the engineers and regardless of
the equipment used. The "best" recordings are often the result of many
factors, including being lucky enough to have a good performance, good
acoustics and environmental factors such as humidity and air pressure,
all of which can alter the sound of a recording even with all other
factors being equal. Listen to a number of recordings by any single
artist (or orchestra), any single recording engineer, any single room
and so on, and there will be audible differences. So what *is* the "norm"?

It's another matter to send a recording off to someone who will be
changing that recording in some way -- i.e. mastering -- and expect to
get back something that resembles what one imagined the end result would
be. There are just too many variables one needs to be intimately
familiar with.

--
Best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Neil > wrote:
>It's another matter to send a recording off to someone who will be
>changing that recording in some way -- i.e. mastering -- and expect to
>get back something that resembles what one imagined the end result would
>be. There are just too many variables one needs to be intimately
>familiar with.

In the case of mastering, I think part of the problem is that it's now
possible to do so many different things to audio that were not possible
a short time ago, and so many people are tempted to do them.

Listening to some of the 7" records I cut when I was an intern, it's amazing
how good some sound. But they don't sound good because I was any good,
because I wasn't. They sound good mostly because I didn't have much in
the way of tools to make them sound bad.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: " They sound good mostly because
I didn't have much in the way of tools to make them sound bad. "

One of the most profound - and sobering - statements on here
in recent memory!

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Neil wrote:
> On 10/4/2015 10:22 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
>> But this comes around to a part of my original thesis that I perhaps
>> did not state
>> as clearly as I should: do we now have a generation of people so
>> unaware of what
>> real instruments sound like, or what is possible to experience with
>> really good
>> reproduced sound, that "mediocre" is accepted as the norm?
>>
> Taking a step back, let's not overlook that there has *always* been a
> huge range of audio quality in recordings,


+1

> regardless of the genre,
> regardless of the talent, regardless of the engineers and regardless of
> the equipment used. The "best" recordings are often the result of many
> factors, including being lucky enough to have a good performance, good
> acoustics and environmental factors such as humidity and air pressure,
> all of which can alter the sound of a recording even with all other
> factors being equal. Listen to a number of recordings by any single
> artist (or orchestra), any single recording engineer, any single room
> and so on, and there will be audible differences. So what *is* the "norm"?
>
> It's another matter to send a recording off to someone who will be
> changing that recording in some way -- i.e. mastering -- and expect to
> get back something that resembles what one imagined the end result would
> be. There are just too many variables one needs to be intimately
> familiar with.
>

--
Les Cargill

[Angus Kerr]

On Sunday, October 4, 2015 at 9:04:19 PM UTC+2, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Frank Stearns wrote:
> >
> >But this comes around to a part of my original thesis that I perhaps did not state
> >as clearly as I should: do we now have a generation of people so unaware of what
> >real instruments sound like, or what is possible to experience with really good
> >reproduced sound, that "mediocre" is accepted as the norm?
>
> That's part of it, but I don't think that's necessarily the problem here.
> I think a lot of the problem is that we have a generation of engineers who
> came up outside the studio system and did not have the benefit of learning
> from other engineers, who learned things pretty much on their own by trial
> and error.

The little that I know, was gleaned by listening, reading plenty of rec.audio.pro posts, watching others, and twisting knobs and trying to hear what they were doing to the sound.

Along the way, I realised that if I didn't understand / couldn't hear whatever the piece of gear was doing, don't use it. And don't do things that other people do just because you think it's the done thing. Your mistakes are there for anybody to listen to forever.

The other day, I was chatting to a live sound engineer who was mixing a show at a local school. Oklahoma, with Orchestra, which I was playing violin in. I was asking how they used EQ. Do you listen and then adjust the EQ? Answer, no, we know what frequencies are problems on certain instruments and what needed to be cut / boosted. My jaw dropped. But they were serious. There is a chart of frequencies and by all accounts, people mix to those charts..

For me, if there was something I was hearing that I didn't like, my approach would be to boost the EQ, and then adjust the frequency on the parametric until it was really objectionable, and then move to cut that objectionable frequency. Similarly to sweeten, or fatten whatever, sweep the parametric until the instrument is sounding better. Add to taste, cut for reference. But I would always listen to try and hear what was happening. Over the years, I suppose one gets to know what 'nasal', 'box', 'boom', 'shrill, 'shriek', 'body', 'floor', 'loose', 'air' etc. frequencies were. But I always let my ears be my guide.

>
> This isn't entirely bad, but it HAS resulted in a world where any bozo off
> the street can hang up a shingle and call himself a mastering engineer
> without any previous experience at all.
>

Not me.
-Angus.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/5/2015 5:46 AM, Angus Kerr wrote:
> The other day, I was chatting to a live sound engineer who was mixing
> a show at a local school. Oklahoma, with Orchestra, which I was
> playing violin in. I was asking how they used EQ. Do you listen and
> then adjust the EQ? Answer, no, we know what frequencies are problems
> on certain instruments and what needed to be cut / boosted. My jaw
> dropped. But they were serious. There is a chart of frequencies and
> by all accounts, people mix to those charts.


See how easy it is? Anyone can be a live sound engineer.

There's a certain amount of truth, though, to having some experience
with typical problems in a given situation and venue. There are some EQ
settings that are a pretty safe bet for starters, particularly if
there's no sound check. You figure that no matter where you put the
microphone, the guitar player will point the sound hole of his guitar
directly at it. You figure that if it's not an experienced rock singer
and the mic is an SM58, you'll probably need a little dip at around 2.5
kHz. You can roll off the high end of a kick drum mic or bass DI. Stuff
like that.


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

[Angus Kerr]

> On 10/5/2015 5:46 AM, Angus Kerr wrote:
> > The other day, I was chatting to a live sound engineer who was mixing
> > a show at a local school. Oklahoma, with Orchestra, which I was
> > playing violin in. I was asking how they used EQ. Do you listen and
> > then adjust the EQ? Answer, no, we know what frequencies are problems
> > on certain instruments and what needed to be cut / boosted. My jaw
> > dropped. But they were serious. There is a chart of frequencies and
> > by all accounts, people mix to those charts.
>
>
> See how easy it is? Anyone can be a live sound engineer.
>
> There's a certain amount of truth, though, to having some experience
> with typical problems in a given situation and venue. There are some EQ
> settings that are a pretty safe bet for starters, particularly if
> there's no sound check. You figure that no matter where you put the
> microphone, the guitar player will point the sound hole of his guitar
> directly at it. You figure that if it's not an experienced rock singer
> and the mic is an SM58, you'll probably need a little dip at around 2.5
> kHz. You can roll off the high end of a kick drum mic or bass DI. Stuff
> like that.

You are right, of course, assuming you have EQ left over to do that - assuming the room and system have been equalised. I remember mixing a band in a room with a boom of about 200Hz. All the EQ I had was used to take away the boom. The end result sounded horrible. Thin, no body to the sound, and it was the best I could do.

The key word here is 'experience'. In my 'experience', 'experience' cannot be taught, it can only be gained by experience.

It makes me so mad, and I'm not talking about audio here, I'm talking my regular job, when HR types think that ten or twenty years of experience, gained through interest, self study, and making some HORRIBLE mistakes, can be passed on to someone who's not really interested in the field of study / specialisation in a space of a few weeks or month's 'fast tracking'. Hell if there was a fast track I would have taken it!

At the end of the day, I think I would rather have someone mixing my show using his ears, with the charts as reference, than the other way round. Same as if you are auditioning a musician - he may have a Phd in music, but can he play?

-Angus.

[Frank Stearns]

Neil > writes:

>On 10/4/2015 10:22 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
>> But this comes around to a part of my original thesis that I perhaps did not state
>> as clearly as I should: do we now have a generation of people so unaware of what
>> real instruments sound like, or what is possible to experience with really good
>> reproduced sound, that "mediocre" is accepted as the norm?
>>
>Taking a step back, let's not overlook that there has *always* been a
>huge range of audio quality in recordings, regardless of the genre,
>regardless of the talent, regardless of the engineers and regardless of
>the equipment used. The "best" recordings are often the result of many
>factors, including being lucky enough to have a good performance, good
>acoustics and environmental factors such as humidity and air pressure,
>all of which can alter the sound of a recording even with all other
>factors being equal. Listen to a number of recordings by any single
>artist (or orchestra), any single recording engineer, any single room
>and so on, and there will be audible differences. So what *is* the "norm"?

>It's another matter to send a recording off to someone who will be
>changing that recording in some way -- i.e. mastering -- and expect to
>get back something that resembles what one imagined the end result would
>be. There are just too many variables one needs to be intimately
>familiar with.


All good points. But this was not a case of some imagined outcome not occurring;
this was a case of sliding backwards from a known starting point.

In these threads -- both in what happened to my recent project and the "gray"
tonality I've been hearing more of in other projects (not universal, but more of it)
-- I'm pointing to a specific starting point compared to what came back, as well as
inferences of something similar apparently happening to others.

Good elements -- such as a great performance -- can mitigate some negative technical
aspects. But I want to have it all: great performances /and/ great engineering such
that you're on the edge of your seat and want to listen all the way through, the
ringing cell phone or other distractions be damned. :)

When I've gotten a rare project that has those performance elements, and carefully
crafted mixes have been synergistic with those performances, I'm more than a little
irritated to have taken steps backward.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/5/2015 8:24 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
> Neil > writes:
>
>> On 10/4/2015 10:22 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
>>> But this comes around to a part of my original thesis that I perhaps did not state
>>> as clearly as I should: do we now have a generation of people so unaware of what
>>> real instruments sound like, or what is possible to experience with really good
>>> reproduced sound, that "mediocre" is accepted as the norm?
>>>
>> Taking a step back, let's not overlook that there has *always* been a
>> huge range of audio quality in recordings, regardless of the genre,
>> regardless of the talent, regardless of the engineers and regardless of
>> the equipment used. The "best" recordings are often the result of many
>> factors, including being lucky enough to have a good performance, good
>> acoustics and environmental factors such as humidity and air pressure,
>> all of which can alter the sound of a recording even with all other
>> factors being equal. Listen to a number of recordings by any single
>> artist (or orchestra), any single recording engineer, any single room
>> and so on, and there will be audible differences. So what *is* the "norm"?
>
>> It's another matter to send a recording off to someone who will be
>> changing that recording in some way -- i.e. mastering -- and expect to
>> get back something that resembles what one imagined the end result would
>> be. There are just too many variables one needs to be intimately
>> familiar with.
>
>
> All good points. But this was not a case of some imagined outcome not occurring;
> this was a case of sliding backwards from a known starting point.
>
> In these threads -- both in what happened to my recent project and the "gray"
> tonality I've been hearing more of in other projects (not universal, but more of it)
> -- I'm pointing to a specific starting point compared to what came back, as well as
> inferences of something similar apparently happening to others.
>
What you've been describing sounds like what I'd call "popular
conventions", the rendering of musical instruments in a way that
professionals find pleasing. What I've been trying to convey is that the
whole process of recording is full of "grayness", those technical or
practical choices regarding how a musical event should be rendered. So,
whether things slide "backwards" or "forwards" is pretty much embedded
in one's expectations.

--
Best regards,

Neil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/5/2015 1:15 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Neil
> > wrote:
>>>
>> What you've been describing sounds like what I'd call "popular
>> conventions", the rendering of musical instruments in a way that
>> professionals find pleasing. What I've been trying to convey is
>> that the whole process of recording is full of "grayness", those
>> technical or practical choices regarding how a musical event
>> should be rendered. So, whether things slide "backwards" or
>> "forwards" is pretty much embedded in one's expectations.
>
> In the case of electronic music this is surely the case. But in the
> case of an orchestra recording there is a standard reference as to
> what it should sound like.
>
I stand by my statement, because what it "should sound like" is still
not what it *does* sound like when one is actually in the room,
regardless of genre. Furthermore, what it sounds like on a CD is a lot
different than what it sounded like on a 78. In short, popular
conventions are not necessarily a bad thing.

> While we can have some discussions about whether it should sound like
> the listener is in the balcony or the third row, the basic reference
> for the sound remains and we can readily make a comparison between
> the recording and the real thing to see if things are getting better
> or worse. --scott
>
Perhaps, but they're still unmistakably different, and "better or worse"
is a matter of... popular conventions. ;-)

--
Best regards,

Neil

[Frank Stearns]

Neil > writes:

>On 10/5/2015 8:24 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
>> Neil > writes:
>>
>>> On 10/4/2015 10:22 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:

snips

>>> It's another matter to send a recording off to someone who will be
>>> changing that recording in some way -- i.e. mastering -- and expect to
>>> get back something that resembles what one imagined the end result would
>>> be. There are just too many variables one needs to be intimately
>>> familiar with.
>>
>> All good points. But this was not a case of some imagined outcome not occurring;
>> this was a case of sliding backwards from a known starting point.
>>
>> In these threads -- both in what happened to my recent project and the "gray"
>> tonality I've been hearing more of in other projects (not universal, but more of it)
>> -- I'm pointing to a specific starting point compared to what came back, as well as
>> inferences of something similar apparently happening to others.
>>
>What you've been describing sounds like what I'd call "popular
>conventions", the rendering of musical instruments in a way that
>professionals find pleasing. What I've been trying to convey is that the
>whole process of recording is full of "grayness", those technical or
>practical choices regarding how a musical event should be rendered. So,
>whether things slide "backwards" or "forwards" is pretty much embedded
>in one's expectations.

Oops. Let's not conflate two different meanings to the word "gray" here.

First, you are of course correct -- there are many "gray" /areas/ in the process of
creating any art, and many artistic decisions are made along the way. And you might
never know which decisions were "correct"; it's art, afterall.

The "gray" I'm bringing up here is not a term in the sense of a "gray area", subject
to the whims of some artistic process. "Gray" in the sense of my original post
covers an unwanted and unwarranted increase in distortion, along with a reduction in
"sparkle" or "aliveness," compared to what the mastering house had been given.

(BTW, those faults introduced at mastering should not taken as a need to jack up the
treble -- in fact, that's typically only going to make things worse, much worse. The
problem(s) are deeper than that. Some were identified and fixed, some remain.)

It's been my experience that many musicians are so conditioned to the inherent flaws
in how their recorded voice or instrument typically sound that it never occurs to
them just how good things /could/ sound.

This is likely why I got sheepish acknowledgements from the musicians (who thought
the first pass at mastering sounded great) that yes, as we fixed things, they could
then hear the difference and wound up appreciating the trouble I was causing.

In terms of what "professionals find pleasing", well, I've made a living doing this
for quite a spell now, and what went out the door was pleasing; what came back was
not.

Often what I buy to listen to just for me has been less pleasing of late, with a
"gray" tonality similar to what happened with this project.

And yet, there are many gems out there (I listed a few in another post) which
indicate to me that high sonic standards are possible, but that some in the current
engineering crop don't catch the difference. This is perhaps due to cultural
impoverishment, a bad room, a flawed approach, untruthful monitors, something else
entirely, or some combination...

Hope that clarifies,

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Frank Stearns]

Neil > writes:

>On 10/5/2015 1:15 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> In article >, Neil
>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>> What you've been describing sounds like what I'd call "popular
>>> conventions", the rendering of musical instruments in a way that
>>> professionals find pleasing. What I've been trying to convey is
>>> that the whole process of recording is full of "grayness", those
>>> technical or practical choices regarding how a musical event
>>> should be rendered. So, whether things slide "backwards" or
>>> "forwards" is pretty much embedded in one's expectations.
>>
>> In the case of electronic music this is surely the case. But in the
>> case of an orchestra recording there is a standard reference as to
>> what it should sound like.
>>
>I stand by my statement, because what it "should sound like" is still
>not what it *does* sound like when one is actually in the room,
>regardless of genre. Furthermore, what it sounds like on a CD is a lot
>different than what it sounded like on a 78. In short, popular
>conventions are not necessarily a bad thing.

>> While we can have some discussions about whether it should sound like
>> the listener is in the balcony or the third row, the basic reference
>> for the sound remains and we can readily make a comparison between
>> the recording and the real thing to see if things are getting better
>> or worse. --scott
>>
>Perhaps, but they're still unmistakably different, and "better or worse"
>is a matter of... popular conventions. ;-)

How about "before and after"? <w>

Frank
Mobile Audio

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/5/2015 7:16 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Neil > wrote:
>> On 10/5/2015 1:15 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> While we can have some discussions about whether it should sound like
>>> the listener is in the balcony or the third row, the basic reference
>>> for the sound remains and we can readily make a comparison between
>>> the recording and the real thing to see if things are getting better
>>> or worse.
>>>
>> Perhaps, but they're still unmistakably different, and "better or worse"
>> is a matter of... popular conventions. ;-)
>
> Popular conventions change, though... and if you make recordings based
> on popular conventions, they are recordings that will sound dated in a
> few years, the same way ping-pong stereo sounds dated today, the same way
> aggressive plate reverb on vocals sounds dated.
>
> Listen to some of the DG classical recordings of the eighties, with aggressive
> sectional miking, everything moving around all the time... does not sound very
> much like an orchestra and nobody would make a recording like that today.
>
> But the standard of hall realism stays pretty much the same.
> --scott
>
I understand and mostly agree with what you're saying. However, "hall
realism" is also in flux, and the conventions have changed over the
decades to accommodate technology and taste. Otherwise, we wouldn't have
many solo violinists that could be heard over the orchestral
accompaniment. ;-)

--
Best regards,

Neil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/5/2015 5:43 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
> Neil > writes:
>
>> On 10/5/2015 1:15 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> In article >, Neil
>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> What you've been describing sounds like what I'd call "popular
>>>> conventions", the rendering of musical instruments in a way that
>>>> professionals find pleasing. What I've been trying to convey is
>>>> that the whole process of recording is full of "grayness", those
>>>> technical or practical choices regarding how a musical event
>>>> should be rendered. So, whether things slide "backwards" or
>>>> "forwards" is pretty much embedded in one's expectations.
>>>
>>> In the case of electronic music this is surely the case. But in the
>>> case of an orchestra recording there is a standard reference as to
>>> what it should sound like.
>>>
>> I stand by my statement, because what it "should sound like" is still
>> not what it *does* sound like when one is actually in the room,
>> regardless of genre. Furthermore, what it sounds like on a CD is a lot
>> different than what it sounded like on a 78. In short, popular
>> conventions are not necessarily a bad thing.
>
>>> While we can have some discussions about whether it should sound like
>>> the listener is in the balcony or the third row, the basic reference
>>> for the sound remains and we can readily make a comparison between
>>> the recording and the real thing to see if things are getting better
>>> or worse. --scott
>>>
>> Perhaps, but they're still unmistakably different, and "better or worse"
>> is a matter of... popular conventions. ;-)
>
> How about "before and after"? <w>
>
You liked "before", and not so much "after"... so, your opinion is that
it got worse, which apparently differed from the opinion of the
mastering engineer. ;-)

--
Best regards,

Neil

[[email protected]]

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

--
Best regards,

Neil "


http://www.onmoneymaking.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/kissing-ass.jpg a little, are we, Neil?"

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/5/2015 5:41 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
> Neil > writes:
>
>> On 10/5/2015 8:24 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
>>> Neil > writes:
>>>
>>>> On 10/4/2015 10:22 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
>
> snips
>
>>>> It's another matter to send a recording off to someone who will be
>>>> changing that recording in some way -- i.e. mastering -- and expect to
>>>> get back something that resembles what one imagined the end result would
>>>> be. There are just too many variables one needs to be intimately
>>>> familiar with.
>>>
>>> All good points. But this was not a case of some imagined outcome not occurring;
>>> this was a case of sliding backwards from a known starting point.
>>>
>>> In these threads -- both in what happened to my recent project and the "gray"
>>> tonality I've been hearing more of in other projects (not universal, but more of it)
>>> -- I'm pointing to a specific starting point compared to what came back, as well as
>>> inferences of something similar apparently happening to others.
>>>
>> What you've been describing sounds like what I'd call "popular
>> conventions", the rendering of musical instruments in a way that
>> professionals find pleasing. What I've been trying to convey is that the
>> whole process of recording is full of "grayness", those technical or
>> practical choices regarding how a musical event should be rendered. So,
>> whether things slide "backwards" or "forwards" is pretty much embedded
>> in one's expectations.
>
> Oops. Let's not conflate two different meanings to the word "gray" here.
>
> First, you are of course correct -- there are many "gray" /areas/ in the process of
> creating any art, and many artistic decisions are made along the way. And you might
> never know which decisions were "correct"; it's art, afterall.
>
> The "gray" I'm bringing up here is not a term in the sense of a "gray area", subject
> to the whims of some artistic process. "Gray" in the sense of my original post
> covers an unwanted and unwarranted increase in distortion, along with a reduction in
> "sparkle" or "aliveness," compared to what the mastering house had been given.
>
> (BTW, those faults introduced at mastering should not taken as a need to jack up the
> treble -- in fact, that's typically only going to make things worse, much worse. The
> problem(s) are deeper than that. Some were identified and fixed, some remain.)
>
> It's been my experience that many musicians are so conditioned to the inherent flaws
> in how their recorded voice or instrument typically sound that it never occurs to
> them just how good things /could/ sound.
>
> This is likely why I got sheepish acknowledgements from the musicians (who thought
> the first pass at mastering sounded great) that yes, as we fixed things, they could
> then hear the difference and wound up appreciating the trouble I was causing.
>
> In terms of what "professionals find pleasing", well, I've made a living doing this
> for quite a spell now, and what went out the door was pleasing; what came back was
> not.
>
> Often what I buy to listen to just for me has been less pleasing of late, with a
> "gray" tonality similar to what happened with this project.
>
> And yet, there are many gems out there (I listed a few in another post) which
> indicate to me that high sonic standards are possible, but that some in the current
> engineering crop don't catch the difference. This is perhaps due to cultural
> impoverishment, a bad room, a flawed approach, untruthful monitors, something else
> entirely, or some combination...
>
> Hope that clarifies,
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
>
Yes, I understood your meaning, and there is a multi-entendre in the use
of the term "gray" in the discussion. ;-) If I'm on track, I'd describe
the result as being "dulled" by the processing.

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

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

--
Best regards,

Neil

[geoff]

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

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


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

geoff

[Angus Kerr]

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 1:16:13 AM UTC+2, Scott Dorsey wrote:
-snip-
>
> Popular conventions change, though... and if you make recordings based
> on popular conventions, they are recordings that will sound dated in a
> few years, the same way ping-pong stereo sounds dated today, the same way
> aggressive plate reverb on vocals sounds dated.

R&B cliche - vocals dripping in reverb and the ubiquitous wind chimes.....
The horrible reverb - gated snare of the eighties (Phil Collins in the air tonight example) - combined with those horrible cheesy keyboard sounds that sounded like a swarm of angry insects..
The cardboard sounding overmuted toms and snare of the seventies...

>
> Listen to some of the DG classical recordings of the eighties, with aggressive
> sectional miking, everything moving around all the time... does not sound very
> much like an orchestra and nobody would make a recording like that today.
>
I've got a couple of these, care to cite an example?

> But the standard of hall realism stays pretty much the same.
>

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

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

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

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

As usual, we are miles of topic now..

-Angus.

[Angus Kerr]

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 9:15:22 PM UTC+2, geoff wrote:
> On 7/10/2015 2:15 a.m., Neil wrote:
>
> >>
> > I understand and mostly agree with what you're saying. However, "hall
> > realism" is also in flux, and the conventions have changed over the
> > decades to accommodate technology and taste. Otherwise, we wouldn't have
> > many solo violinists that could be heard over the orchestral
> > accompaniment. ;-)

I don't think technology has anything to do with solo violins being heard above an orchestra, unless there is amplification going on.

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

The conductor, the arrangement of the piece, as well as the musicality of every musician in the orchestra - should ensure that the solo violin is perfectly heard. Anything else, and there's something dreadfully wrong.

HOWEVER....

Playing in many amateur orchestras, there is a distinct lack of musicianship - the loud bits are not loud enough and the soft bits are too loud, nobody listens to the soloist, and the general dynamic is mezzo forte throughout.. Players blasting out parts that are merely effect to accompany the solo, inappropriate phrasing, you name it.

In the professional orchestras, there are politics, back biting and other agendas where musicians seek to undermine another's performance. An orchestra of vengeful musicians can make a conductor and a soloist look really bad. If they're not on your side, you are in trouble in both roles. It's not supposed to happen, but seeing what happens to musicians year in year out, the love of music flies out the window most of the time. The prime reason why I chose not to become a professional violinist in an Orchestra.

-Angus.

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/6/2015 4:26 PM, Angus Kerr wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 9:15:22 PM UTC+2, geoff wrote:
>> On 7/10/2015 2:15 a.m., Neil wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> I understand and mostly agree with what you're saying. However,
>>> "hall realism" is also in flux, and the conventions have changed
>>> over the decades to accommodate technology and taste. Otherwise,
>>> we wouldn't have many solo violinists that could be heard over
>>> the orchestral accompaniment. ;-)
>
> I don't think technology has anything to do with solo violins being
> heard above an orchestra, unless there is amplification going on.
>
This is quite often the case today, whereas it was pretty much unheard
of in the 1960s and before. Really, all I was trying to express is that
those things that are considered "normal" and "best practices" in audio
change over time, often driven by technology.

--
Best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

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

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

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

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[None]

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

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

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

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

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

[Angus Kerr]

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 12:18:45 AM UTC+2, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Angus Kerr wrote:
> >> Listen to some of the DG classical recordings of the eighties, with aggre=
> >ssive
> >> sectional miking, everything moving around all the time... does not sound=
> > very
> >> much like an orchestra and nobody would make a recording like that today.
> >>=20
> >I've got a couple of these, care to cite an example?
>
> Best example EVER is to get one of the recordings from the 1950s von Karajan
> recording of the complete Beethoven symphonies, then get the 1980s re-recording
> of the same piece.
>
> The performance is different, in some ways better and more subtle in the later
> recordings, but the recording quality is just dramatically worse, with the
> overall perspective of the orchestra changing whenever the engineers bring up
> the solo spots. Which they do constantly. You just want to yell at someone
> to leave them alone.
>
I'm going to check. I liked the 60's recordings, the only real issue was the degree of tape hiss. But the sound was a lot easier on the ears than the early digital recordings..

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

> >I've listened to a world class Orchestra in the 3rd row in a good hall, and=
> > I could hear everything, albeit in a more blended way.
>
> Right, and the degree of blend is very much a matter of personal taste and it
> is why we can have valid and reasonable discussions about perspective and
> hall differences.
>
> >I've got an 80's recording of LSO with Sir Colin Davis ... listening to it =
> >with my eyes closed, I could hear him breathing and snorting - I liked that=
> >.
>
> I don't like that, and I don't like Glenn Gould's sounds either, but what
> I MOST HATE are squeaky chairs and squeaky podia. Paper rustling sounds
> don't bother me half as much.

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

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

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

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

Bottom line is, no amplification unless absolutely unavoidable.

-Angus.

[geoff]

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

> Bottom line is, no amplification unless absolutely unavoidable.

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

geoff

[Frank Stearns]

Neil > writes:

snips

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

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

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

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

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

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Frank Stearns]

Neil > writes:

snips

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My mileage certainly varied on this one!

Frank
Mobile Audio

[Frank Stearns]

geoff > writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/7/2015 7:21 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
> Neil > writes:
>
> snips
>
>>> How about "before and after"? <w>
>>>
>> You liked "before", and not so much "after"... so, your opinion is that
>> it got worse, which apparently differed from the opinion of the
>> mastering engineer. ;-)
>
> I think you've touched on a big part of the issue.
>
> Opinions are fine, even those differing from mine! But I'd like to deal with
> "informed" opinions. To use my own color analogy from an earlier post, how can you
> have an opinion about blue if you've never seen blue?
>
It might be hard to discern which opinions are "informed"...

> Maybe there's something in his process or chain (including room and monitors) that
> doesn't render depth and dimension. So if it's not there, he doesn't know. Maybe
> something in his system masks (or does not properly reproduce) distortion.
>
It's highly likely that the sound in his room differs from yours. That's
just the nature of all things audio. It's also possible that his system
de-emphasizes something that yours over-emphasizes, and/or vice versa.
But, in this case, you were able to identify the changes that occurred,
which is fortunate.

> And the more insideous "cultural" aspect to this: maybe he's never really
> experienced a wider variety of music that hasn't gone through electronics and
> transducers, and as a reference has no idea what that's like.
>
I think that's unlikely. It could be that his experience is so broad
that he makes no assumptions about what someone wants or might think is
a good rendering of their material.

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

--
Best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>Bottom line is, no amplification unless absolutely unavoidable.

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

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

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

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>On 7/10/2015 10:10 p.m., Angus Kerr wrote:
>
>> Bottom line is, no amplification unless absolutely unavoidable.
>
>Which in any competent orchestra (or chamber group, or opera) totally
>should be avoidable. Anything else is false.

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

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

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


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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

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

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

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

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

> --scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Angus Kerr]

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 3:18:29 PM UTC+2, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >On 7/10/2015 10:10 p.m., Angus Kerr wrote:
> >
> >> Bottom line is, no amplification unless absolutely unavoidable.
> >
> >Which in any competent orchestra (or chamber group, or opera) totally
> >should be avoidable. Anything else is false.
>
> It's not just the orchestra, it's the room. Take that chamber group out
> of the chamber and put it into a stadium and unfortunately you are stuck
> with amplification.
>
> It won't sound like a chamber group in a proper room, but that is the
> downside of transplanting groups into an alien environment.
>
You have it bang on there. Which is why we who play in Orchestras like to play in halls and rooms, which is the correct habitat for an Orchestra. Although it is amazing how different acoustics affect brass and strings and orchestral balance. Reverberent like a church - brass can be overpowering; a school hall with a back curtain, and a dry acoustic, the strings tend to dominate with the brass being sucked into that curtain, although dry acoustics undermine a string players comfort that comes with the blanket of reverb. Proper concert hall gets this just right. Theatres tend to be too dry.

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

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

-Angus.

[Angus Kerr]

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

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

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

>
> You need a better PA crew that actually knows about orchestras. Once you
> add PA, the orchestra ceases to sound like a real orchestra at all, but
> that doesn't mean that anyone should put up with those kind of problems.
> It should be anything but thin... in fact the tendency is often to make it
> sound like a film soundtrack with an exaggerated low end. Narrow notch
> filters are the PA operator's best friend.
>
> >Also, if the sound engineer is doing this, he needs to understand an orches=
> >tra - exactly what each instrument's role in the overall orchestra is, what=
> > it sounds like and the difference between an oboe and a clarinet, a trumpe=
> >t and a trombone. If he's been just doing rock bands, that orchestra is goi=
> >ng to sound very strange.
>
> Yes, and he needs to have a score in front of him and be following it so
> that he knows what is going to be happening.
>
Hah! hah! ROTLF! Maybe in first world countries where an Orchestra is actually called an Orchestra, and not a 'band'. Where a cello is not referred to as a 'guitar'.

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

>
> The problem is that for pops concerts, concerts in shopping malls, and other
> outreach events, amplification becomes avoidable.
>
And then the fun starts!

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

-Angus.

[geoff]

On 8/10/2015 2:18 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
> geoff > wrote:
>> On 7/10/2015 10:10 p.m., Angus Kerr wrote:
>>
>>> Bottom line is, no amplification unless absolutely unavoidable.
>>
>> Which in any competent orchestra (or chamber group, or opera) totally
>> should be avoidable. Anything else is false.
>
> It's not just the orchestra, it's the room. Take that chamber group out
> of the chamber and put it into a stadium and unfortunately you are stuck
> with amplification.
>
> It won't sound like a chamber group in a proper room, but that is the
> downside of transplanting groups into an alien environment.

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

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

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>On 8/10/2015 2:18 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> It won't sound like a chamber group in a proper room, but that is the
>> downside of transplanting groups into an alien environment.
>
>Take the group out of the chamber and it's no longer a chamber group !
>
>In a stadium (etc) and amplified, otherwise acoustic ensembles become a
>different form of entertainment.

Yes, precisely!

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

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

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

[Angus Kerr]

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

-snip-

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

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

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

-Angus.

[Trevor]

On 8/10/2015 6:17 PM, Angus Kerr wrote:
> wrote:
>
> -snip-
> It's a pity really, because I am quite fond of bluegrass music, it
> would be a shame that this genre is dying out because of difficulties
> engineering a performance on a big stage requiring miking and
> amplification. I suppose it eventually will morph into an amplified
> version where electric guitars, pickups etc. are used, but then it's
> kind of something else.

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

Trevor.

[Frank Stearns]

Neil > writes:

>On 10/7/2015 7:21 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
>> Neil > writes:
>>
>> snips
>>
>>>> How about "before and after"? <w>
>>>>
>>> You liked "before", and not so much "after"... so, your opinion is that
>>> it got worse, which apparently differed from the opinion of the
>>> mastering engineer. ;-)
>>
>> I think you've touched on a big part of the issue.
>>
>> Opinions are fine, even those differing from mine! But I'd like to deal with
>> "informed" opinions. To use my own color analogy from an earlier post, how can you
>> have an opinion about blue if you've never seen blue?
>>
>It might be hard to discern which opinions are "informed"...

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


>> Maybe there's something in his process or chain (including room and monitors) that
>> doesn't render depth and dimension. So if it's not there, he doesn't know. Maybe
>> something in his system masks (or does not properly reproduce) distortion.
>>
>It's highly likely that the sound in his room differs from yours. That's
>just the nature of all things audio. It's also possible that his system
>de-emphasizes something that yours over-emphasizes, and/or vice versa.

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

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

>> And the more insideous "cultural" aspect to this: maybe he's never really
>> experienced a wider variety of music that hasn't gone through electronics and
>> transducers, and as a reference has no idea what that's like.
>>
>I think that's unlikely. It could be that his experience is so broad
>that he makes no assumptions about what someone wants or might think is
>a good rendering of their material.

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

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

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

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

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

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[[email protected]]

Frank Stearns wrote:

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

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

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

>geoff > wrote:
>>On 8/10/2015 2:18 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>
>>> It won't sound like a chamber group in a proper room, but that is the
>>> downside of transplanting groups into an alien environment.
>>
>>Take the group out of the chamber and it's no longer a chamber group !
>>
>>In a stadium (etc) and amplified, otherwise acoustic ensembles become a
>>different form of entertainment.

>Yes, precisely!

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

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

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

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

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

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

YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Frank Stearns]

writes:

>Frank Stearns wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Scott Dorsey]

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

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

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

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

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

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/8/2015 7:54 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
> Neil > writes:
(snips)
>> It's highly likely that the sound in his room differs from yours. That's
>> just the nature of all things audio. It's also possible that his system
>> de-emphasizes something that yours over-emphasizes, and/or vice versa.
>
> Of course. And I've heard some monitor systems and rooms that would drive me crazy
> to use, but the results of the work in those places sounded great in my room.
>
One "old school" technique is to use monitors that overemphasize typical
problem areas.

>> But, in this case, you were able to identify the changes that occurred,
>> which is fortunate.
>
>>> And the more insideous "cultural" aspect to this: maybe he's never really
>>> experienced a wider variety of music that hasn't gone through electronics and
>>> transducers, and as a reference has no idea what that's like.
>>>
>> I think that's unlikely. It could be that his experience is so broad
>> that he makes no assumptions about what someone wants or might think is
>> a good rendering of their material.
>
> Maybe. But I have the funny feeling his experience is actually fairly narrow -- at
> least when it comes to a "direct" dealing with music. Perhaps his experience is
> broad, but only within the smaller universe of sound through transducers and
> electronics. He perhaps has never been to a live, unamplified event.
>
> Not that we're dealing with live acoustic sound while mastering a project, but that
> such experience gives him auditory context as an engineer. I often tell young
> engineers that they really should seek out such live events just to experience what
> "real" sound is like with absolutely nothing other than a little air between one's
> ears and the instruments/voices. And they should attend such events periodically to
> "cleanse" their auditory perception.
>
Something else is going on if they haven't experienced live acoustic
instruments. Even my grandchildren have extensive experience with more
than one genre of music under those circumstances.

>> But, there's another factor that you alluded to that may make things
>> even more unclear. You're on one coast, he's on another, and it's for
>> sure that the musical preferences of the residents of those regions differ.
>
> Ironically, the project before this one was mastered in NYC, and it was fine (but
> the project itself had been tracked in several studios all over the country). This
> current house is on the West coast, but then so is the composer and arranger -- same
> city, in fact. (That's one of the reasons why we used this guy.)
>
There would be a completely different set of parameters for mastering a
multi-track project that was recorded in a number of different rooms.

> I know what you mean by a west v. east coast "sound", but given the small world
> nature of our modern times I think that's less of a factor than it used to be.
>
Perhaps they are less than before, but I still think they're pretty
different.
--
Best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

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

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

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



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

[Angus Kerr]

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 6:15:22 PM UTC+2, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 10/8/2015 3:17 AM, Angus Kerr wrote:
Of course, the sound you get is a
> > sort of electronic / woody / nasally / screechy direct sound that
> > really sounds nothing like the acoustic instrument at all and
> > requires a lot of EQ to sound halfway decent.
>
> I have a hard time improving the sound of a pickup on acoustic guitar.
> Seems like the only substantial frequency content is what you want to
> get rid of. Violin pickups can be OK, particularly for rowdy music.

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

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

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

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

[Rick Ruskin]

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

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

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


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

[Trevor]

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

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

Trevor

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>On 9/10/2015 12:41 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> The bluegrass people have recently taken to having PA done with a single mike
>> for the whole ensemble, and performers moving around to balance themselves.
>
>"Recently"! If you call the 1940's recent I guess :-)

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


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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

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

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

[geoff]

On 10/10/2015 9:19 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 10/9/2015 10:37 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> It's really been only in the last 10 years that the single mike thing
>> has come back into style.
>
> Time flies like arrows (fruit flies like bananas). Bluegrass bands using
> 1 mic re-emerged nearly 20 years ago, and by 10 years ago they started
> drifting back to multiple mics. There are still a few holdouts that
> freak out the stage and sound crews at festivals, but they do just fine
> in rowdy bars where bluegrass really should be played. .
>


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

geoff

[Nil[_2_]]

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

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

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

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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