"Scott" wrote in message
On Feb 16, 5:20=A0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message
On Feb 15, 5:31=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
Actually, I've heard the clocks sound very real (my
grandparents had a house full of wind-ups...I've head
at least eight of various sizes go off at once) to
sounding very unreal. =3DA0Using the SACD version.
=3DA0And the culprit....the preamp. =3DA0 Audio
Research SP6B vs. Onkyo P301. =3DA0So much for
big-box store electronics.
I own a weight-driven grandfather clock with chime
movement, so I know exactly what one sounds like. I can
move it in my listening room and list=3D en to it
chime, if I want the true live experience.
Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely
possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics and
speakers that are well-configured for the room.
The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so any
claims that close-micing bodes poorly for fidelity is
brought into question by the hi=3D gh end audiophile
comments on this thread.-
Do you have any pictures or first hand accounts of the
mic positions for the recording of the clocks on DSOTM?
No experienced recording engineer would need such a
thing to reach the conclusion that I've provided.
Hmmm. That may very well be true. But the fact is *you*
reached completely eroneous conclusions.
Only in your opinion. Now, you're overreaching your position and pretending
to be a cosmic authority.
Perhaps you should steer clear of Dark Side of the Moon as a
reference.
Perhaps you should remember that you don't rule the universe. Proof by
assertion is no proof at all. If you've got evidence, then offer it. If you
have something to say but OSAF , I'm sure we'd be all glad to hear it from
you.
If you've miced different instruments in different rooms
different ways, = a recording paints a fairly detailed
sonic picture of how the recording was miced. If you've
worked the room, then mic locations can be estimated
fai= rly well.
What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a
studio or studios, which are generally (with a few
exceptions) acousticaly dead. =A0It is co= mmon to mic
close and add the sonic perspective electronically
during the mix. Done right, this can fool most
listeners.
And so based on the false assumption that the clocks were
recorded in an acoustically dead studio room with your
experienced ears as a recording engineer you concluded
that the clocks were recorded in a dead studio room and
were close miced.
No such thing!
Yikes. Arny, the album was recorded at
Abby Road studios. The recording spaces are hardly dead there.
Scott, only a person who has never been in a real world recording studio and
has no clue about how recording is done in studios could make these claims.
Recording studios the size of Abbey Road are composed of multiple highly
dissimilar rooms.
The spaces in a real-world recording studio vary all over the map, and they
can be modified at will for a given tracking session using portable sound
proofing panels or ad hoc sound absorbing materials such as shipping
blankets.
For example, consider
http://www.abbeyroad.com/studios This describes the
three (3) main studios at Abbey Road which clearly vary in size and general
acoustical properties.
Studio 1 can hold a 110 piece orchestra and a 100 voice choir. It strongly
differs from a regular concert hall because there's no seating space for all
that sound to go into. There are no dozens of rows of padded seats and no
people sitting in them. Now look closely at how the microphones are
deployed. First off, there are dozens of them. At least half the musicians
seem to have their own microphone. This corresponds to the much-vilified (by
RAHE) close micing. One purpose of close micing is to vastly reduce the
influence of the acoustics of the room.
Studio two is not a big room. Interstingly enough we can see in the
background right a cubby hole that is filled with a dozen or more portable
acoustic absorbers. They are not deployed right now, but this is not a
picture of a real-world recording session. Its capacity is stated as being
55, which is less than a quarter of the size of studio one. Take a piano,
surround it with sound absorbers and the room is very far from being
reverberent.
Studio three's description says it all: "The recording space was designed to
have a natural and flexible acoustic, with multiple isolation booths." Hmm,
what do they do with the isolation booths? I'll bet they record in them! ;-)
Scott, in contrast to your apparent claim there isn't just one studio at
Abbey Road. There are three major studios whose size and basic layout and
construction varies considerably, and at least one very small one.
Furthermore there is considerable evidence that the acoustics of these rooms
is modified to suit for each recording session and also for different
instruments in the same recording session. We have a clear record that there
are many isolation booths which are typically very dead little rooms.
Also, there are inherent variations in the acoustics of a given room based
on how many musicans are working at any particular time. Move 210 musicans
into a room the size of Studio One or 55 into Studio Two, and its acoustics
change dramatically from the same room when it is nearly empty. Both
configurations can make sense depending on what outcome is desired.
Note that the page for the "Penthouse" mentions the following: "The
Penthouse also has a small isolation booth designed to record single
instruments..."
Almost every studio of substance has portable isolation booths and portable
sound absorbing panels. Without detailed documentation of each recording
session you have no idea what actually happened.
Of course Scott in your apparent state of ignorance, inexperience and with
an overwhelming desire for a rush to judgement, you show zero awareness of
any of the practical exingencies of working in a real world recording
studio.
Kind of funny that we have this interesting
article from one Jon Atkinson on this recording.
http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/ " since I recorded
an album at Abbey Road Studio at the same time that the
Floyd were there making DSotM, I always thought the album
did an excellent job of preserving the characteristic
sound of the studio with which I had become so familiar.
Yet when I first listened to the CD layer of the reissue,
it didn't sound like Abbey Road at all. The sonic
subtleties that identify the recording venue and its
unique reverb chamber had been eliminated or smoothed
over. They were there on the SACD, so some investigation
was called for."
Scott you just skewered yourself. If all of the spaces at Abbey Road were so
reverberent, why did they need to add artifical reverb from a reverb chamber
to some of the recordings?
And yet you conclusions direactly above based on your
expertise as a recordist was "DSOTM was created in a
studio or studios, which are generally (with a few
exceptions) acousticaly dead." ooops......
No oops. Real world experience.
Oh and by the way....The clocks weren't recorded in the
studio. They were recorded in various clock shops
individually. Do you know of any clock shops that are
acoustically dead?
Any store or workshop can be quite acoustically dead when the machines and
the displays break up the spaces and add diffusion and absorbtion.
Compare and contrast a car dealership with a fabric store. One is usually
highly reverberent with tile floors and a lot of glass, while the other one
is usually very dead for pretty obvious reasons - all those bolts of fabric
add a lot of absorbtion and some diffusion.
You've never noticed this when you visit stores and workshops, Scott? Your
ears must be turned off when you go out into the real world.
Again let's look at your assertions as
quoted from above. "Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like
it is entirely possible with the CD version, mid-fi
electronics and speakers that are well-configured for the
room." "What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created
in a studio or studios, which are generally (with a few
exceptions) acousticaly dead." " No experienced recording
engineer would need such a thing (a photo of the mic
configuration from the actual recording session) to reach
the conclusion that I've provided."
I'll stick by my statements, Scott. You've just treated us to an exposition
of your lack of awareness of what you hear when you visit the same places we
all go to every day. You seem to have just conflated a large complex like
Abbey Road into just one room, and then claimed that its acoustics are
always the same when we have photographic evidence and experiential evidence
that the acoustics of those rooms can vary all over the map.
I thought you worked in the motion picture business, Scott. Haven't you
noticed that making motion pictures involves recording sound as well as
moving pictures and stills? Ever take a look at how they do that? How many
recording spaces are at the studios you work for? How many absorbtive
panels? How many isolation booths? How many gobos?