[Ty Ford[_2_]]

Many years ago I had a friend that had a custom guitar shop that told me there
some people that you can never please and you'd be better off to let them be
unhappy with somebody else. That stood me in good stead in my electronic business.

Very true! I've fired myself about half a dozen times over the years because of this.

About the organ sounds. I did a live session with a church organ and was concerned about the blower and valve noise. The client said, "It's fine!! Part of the performance.!!"

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/1/2019 10:39 AM, Ty Ford wrote:
I did a live session with a church organ and was concerned about the blower and valve noise. The client said, "It's fine!! Part of the performance.!!"

I feel the same about finger and pick noise with an acoustic guitar.
Some people just don't get it, though.

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

[Ty Ford[_2_]]

On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/1/2019 10:39 AM, Ty Ford wrote:
I did a live session with a church organ and was concerned about the blower and valve noise. The client said, "It's fine!! Part of the performance.!!"

I feel the same about finger and pick noise with an acoustic guitar.
Some people just don't get it, though.

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

Hey Mike,

I recently used iZotope to de-finger squeak one of my compositions and was jaw dropped by how well it worked. Not that difficult and not destructively audible. I felt like I had just discovered butter!

Regards,

Ty Ford

[[email protected]]

Ty Ford: "de-finger-squeak"

I'm sure you've made lots of audiophiles
extremely happy - and have disappointed
a lot of purists - including the one who is
typing this.

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 08:36:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Ty Ford: "de-finger-squeak"

I'm sure you've made lots of audiophiles
extremely happy - and have disappointed
a lot of purists - including the one who is
typing this.

I consider myself a purist, but I want to hear the pure music of the instrument, the sound caused by the
vibrating string, or the air bibration coming out of a pipe, just as it is written on the musical score. I don't
want to hear the noise of an organ blower, or the bearing noise of the motor running it, or the clicks of a
guitar pick, or the squeking chair as the performer moves. If it isn't on the musical score, it's noise.

[John Williamson]

On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 11:50:01 -0400, joe wrote:
I consider myself a purist, but I want to hear the pure music of the
instrument, the sound caused by the vibrating string, or the air
bibration coming out of a pipe, just as it is written on the musical
score. I don't want to hear the noise of an organ blower, or the bearing
noise of the motor running it, or the clicks of a guitar pick, or the
squeking chair as the performer moves. If it isn't on the musical score,
it's noise.

Read the score and imagine it, or program it using MIDI and a decemt set
of samples?

The recordings I prefer are the ones that are great, but still show they
were performed by humans, possibly in front of an audience. I also dislike
the current fad for close mic'ing the orchestra sections, if not the
performers, and recording in a dead room. That's okay for pop, but no good
for classical, where the room is part of the performance.

Hence my thinking of buying a decent room....



--
F:\Documents\sig.txt

[[email protected]]

On 2 Jul 2019 19:22:03 GMT, John Williamson wrote:

On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 11:50:01 -0400, joe wrote:
I consider myself a purist, but I want to hear the pure music of the
instrument, the sound caused by the vibrating string, or the air
bibration coming out of a pipe, just as it is written on the musical
score. I don't want to hear the noise of an organ blower, or the bearing
noise of the motor running it, or the clicks of a guitar pick, or the
squeking chair as the performer moves. If it isn't on the musical score,
it's noise.

Read the score and imagine it, or program it using MIDI and a decemt set
of samples?

The recordings I prefer are the ones that are great, but still show they
were performed by humans, possibly in front of an audience. I also dislike
the current fad for close mic'ing the orchestra sections, if not the
performers, and recording in a dead room. That's okay for pop, but no good
for classical, where the room is part of the performance.

Hence my thinking of buying a decent room....

I agree you can't get a perfect recording, but I want to hear as closely as possible what
the compser heard in his mind when he wrote it down. I don't think he was hearing blowers
and guitar squeaks and such as part of his work, any more than the pops and clicks of a scratchy
old LP record.

Room acoustics are a reality and have to be seriously addressed, especially for a live performance.
I don't know if close-miking or careful placements of several mics gives a performance or recording
closer to what the composer envisioned, but I'm in favor of whichever does.

[geoff]

On 3/07/2019 2:06 AM, Ty Ford wrote:
On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/1/2019 10:39 AM, Ty Ford wrote:
I did a live session with a church organ and was concerned about the blower and valve noise. The client said, "It's fine!! Part of the performance.!!"

I feel the same about finger and pick noise with an acoustic guitar.
Some people just don't get it, though.

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

Hey Mike,

I recently used iZotope to de-finger squeak one of my compositions and was jaw dropped by how well it worked. Not that difficult and not destructively audible. I felt like I had just discovered butter!

Regards,

Ty Ford


What - Izotope gives you cholesterol ?

geoff

[geoff]

On 3/07/2019 3:36 AM, wrote:
Ty Ford: "de-finger-squeak"

I'm sure you've made lots of audiophiles
extremely happy - and have disappointed
a lot of purists - including the one who is
typing this.


Hey for once I agree with you. Makes me think of the US obsession with
'perfect teeth'.

geoff

[geoff]

On 3/07/2019 7:22 AM, John Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 11:50:01 -0400, joe wrote:
I consider myself a purist, but I want to hear the pure music of the
instrument, the sound caused by the vibrating string, or the air
bibration coming out of a pipe, just as it is written on the musical
score. I don't want to hear the noise of an organ blower, or the bearing
noise of the motor running it, or the clicks of a guitar pick, or the
squeking chair as the performer moves. If it isn't on the musical score,
it's noise.

Read the score and imagine it, or program it using MIDI and a decemt set
of samples?

The recordings I prefer are the ones that are great, but still show they
were performed by humans, possibly in front of an audience. I also dislike
the current fad for close mic'ing the orchestra sections, if not the
performers, and recording in a dead room. That's okay for pop, but no good
for classical, where the room is part of the performance.

Hence my thinking of buying a decent room....




Like.

geoff

[geoff]

On 3/07/2019 8:04 AM, wrote:
On 2 Jul 2019 19:22:03 GMT, John Williamson wrote:

On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 11:50:01 -0400, joe wrote:
I consider myself a purist, but I want to hear the pure music of the
instrument, the sound caused by the vibrating string, or the air
bibration coming out of a pipe, just as it is written on the musical
score. I don't want to hear the noise of an organ blower, or the bearing
noise of the motor running it, or the clicks of a guitar pick, or the
squeking chair as the performer moves. If it isn't on the musical score,
it's noise.

Read the score and imagine it, or program it using MIDI and a decemt set
of samples?

The recordings I prefer are the ones that are great, but still show they
were performed by humans, possibly in front of an audience. I also dislike
the current fad for close mic'ing the orchestra sections, if not the
performers, and recording in a dead room. That's okay for pop, but no good
for classical, where the room is part of the performance.

Hence my thinking of buying a decent room....

I agree you can't get a perfect recording, but I want to hear as closely as possible what
the compser heard in his mind when he wrote it down. I don't think he was hearing blowers
and guitar squeaks and such as part of his work, any more than the pops and clicks of a scratchy
old LP record.

Room acoustics are a reality and have to be seriously addressed, especially for a live performance.
I don't know if close-miking or careful placements of several mics gives a performance or recording
closer to what the composer envisioned, but I'm in favor of whichever does.


In the case of much classical music, the composer hadn't even considered
the possibility of there being any sort of 'recording'. So the
performance 'artifacts' were expected.

And even in current times such music is composed with the aim being
performance, not manicured manufactured recordings.

geoff

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 08:18:46 +1200, geoff wrote:

On 3/07/2019 8:04 AM, wrote:
On 2 Jul 2019 19:22:03 GMT, John Williamson wrote:

The recordings I prefer are the ones that are great, but still show they
were performed by humans, possibly in front of an audience. I also dislike
the current fad for close mic'ing the orchestra sections, if not the
performers, and recording in a dead room. That's okay for pop, but no good
for classical, where the room is part of the performance.

Hence my thinking of buying a decent room....

I agree you can't get a perfect recording, but I want to hear as closely as possible what
the compser heard in his mind when he wrote it down. I don't think he was hearing blowers
and guitar squeaks and such as part of his work, any more than the pops and clicks of a scratchy
old LP record.

Room acoustics are a reality and have to be seriously addressed, especially for a live performance.
I don't know if close-miking or careful placements of several mics gives a performance or recording
closer to what the composer envisioned, but I'm in favor of whichever does.


In the case of much classical music, the composer hadn't even considered
the possibility of there being any sort of 'recording'. So the
performance 'artifacts' were expected.

Perhaps expected and necessarily tolerated, but that doesn't mean they were desired.

And even in current times such music is composed with the aim being
performance, not manicured manufactured recordings.

My preference is to hear the notes produced by the instruments, not the mechanical
noises and artifacts sometimes created by the instrument. These noises vary over the map
depending on performer and instrument, and are not called out or specified by the music composer.

If the music is performed in a well-designed venue, with reflections and reverberations at
optimum levels, excellent peformances and recordings can be had with, in many cases, a handful of mics,
but sometimes numerous mics are needed to compensate for a poor room.

I think when planning a performance, reverbs levels are of a little more interest than instrument clicks and wooshes.
But, we all have our own preferences, right?

[Phil W]

:
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 08:18:46 +1200, geoff
wrote:

In the case of much classical music, the composer hadn't even considered
the possibility of there being any sort of 'recording'. So the
performance 'artifacts' were expected.

Perhaps expected and necessarily tolerated, but that doesn't mean they
were desired.

By the same degree it does not mean, those artifacts were NOT desired. There
are no notation signs for finger nails or guitar pick noises. So nobody can
know, if the composer had those in mind for "the full picture" or not!

Recently, I watched a modern jazz performance, where the guitar player made
his guitar strings vibrate by touching the strings with his loooooong beard
(similar to the ZZ Top guys´ ones) - I´m not aware of a notation sign for
that.

But, we all have our own preferences, right?

And some of us just prefer to be overestimate various aspects rather than
enjoy the more important parts.

[Ty Ford[_2_]]

On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 11:36:30 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Ty Ford: "de-finger-squeak"

I'm sure you've made lots of audiophiles
extremely happy - and have disappointed
a lot of purists - including the one who is
typing this.

Don't be too concerned, self-acclaimed purists seldom are.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Ty Ford[_2_]]

On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 4:12:05 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 3/07/2019 2:06 AM, Ty Ford wrote:
On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/1/2019 10:39 AM, Ty Ford wrote:
I did a live session with a church organ and was concerned about the blower and valve noise. The client said, "It's fine!! Part of the performance.!!"

I feel the same about finger and pick noise with an acoustic guitar.
Some people just don't get it, though.

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

Hey Mike,

I recently used iZotope to de-finger squeak one of my compositions and was jaw dropped by how well it worked. Not that difficult and not destructively audible. I felt like I had just discovered butter!

Regards,

Ty Ford


What - Izotope gives you cholesterol ?

geoff

No, I also have the red yeast rice and CoQ10 plugins1

Ty

[geoff]

On 3/07/2019 11:44 PM, wrote:


I think when planning a performance, reverbs levels are of a little more interest than instrument clicks and wooshes.
But, we all have our own preferences, right?


Manicuring would certainly have killed the famous 'The Köln Concert' !

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 02/07/2019 21:18, geoff wrote:

In the case of much classical music, the composer hadn't even considered
the possibility of there being any sort of 'recording'. So the
performance 'artifacts' were expected.

In a lot of cases, classical music was written to be performed in a
certain type of acoustic and take advantage of that. I have listened in
the past to the same choir performing the same programme in a large,
fairly empty church and a modern, dead space, where sound reinforcement
had to be used, and while the former sounded "live", the latter sounded
as though they were playing a CD through the PA system. Using shotgun
mics didn't help...

Choral music such as hymns are written and arranged to be performed in a
large, echoing church, large scale orchestral works and opera in a large
hall, deadened by the audience, and chamber music in a smaller room with
a much deader acoustic.

And even in current times such music is composed with the aim being
performance, not manicured manufactured recordings.

Modern classical music is written, by and large,to be performed in a
deader acoustic than, say Beethoven's works.



--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/4/2019 4:19 AM, John Williamson wrote:
I have listened in the past to the same choir performing the same
programme in a large, fairly empty church and a modern, dead space,
where sound reinforcement had to be used, and while the former sounded
"live", the latter sounded as though they were playing a CD through the
PA system.

And this "dead space" sound is what those who want to get rid of all
warts and blemishes want to hear. It's a matter of conditioning. When
mowing the lawn, they'd prefer hearing a CD played through earbuds than
enjoy a live band playing on the porch. Lawn mower engines are SOOOOO
annoying!

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

[Bill[_20_]]

In message , Mike Rivers
writes
On 7/4/2019 4:19 AM, John Williamson wrote:
I have listened in the past to the same choir performing the same
programme in a large, fairly empty church and a modern, dead space,
where sound reinforcement had to be used, and while the former sounded
"live", the latter sounded as though they were playing a CD through
the PA system.

And this "dead space" sound is what those who want to get rid of all
warts and blemishes want to hear. It's a matter of conditioning. When
mowing the lawn, they'd prefer hearing a CD played through earbuds than
enjoy a live band playing on the porch. Lawn mower engines are SOOOOO
annoying!

It is also a matter of where and how you are listening to a recording.
Finger squeaks on a CD played repeatedly in the lounge could be much
more noticeable than the same squeaks in a one-off live concert.

But then, I'm firmly in the leave the warts in camp (within reason), and
have a particular fetish about being able to hear perspective in a
recording. Particularly when mixing straight down to stereo (eg for live
broadcast) in pop, country or folk music, where I hate the way that many
engineers spend ages faffing about with multiple drum mics, leaving
little time for the rest of the sound check. My, no doubt out of date,
observation was that inevitably the mix ended with the kit too far
forward and too loud.

This is now well away from the original question. I would hate this
discussion to deter John from his hopes and ambitions for the church.
--
Bill

[John Williamson]

On 04/07/2019 12:05, Bill wrote:

This is now well away from the original question. I would hate this
discussion to deter John from his hopes and ambitions for the church.

Grin I'm not being deterred, I asked the question to gather
information about attitudes and possibilities, and that's coming in nicely.

The big questions, only one of which can probably only be guessed at
when answering , seem to be "Will extra double glazing on the relatively
small stained glass windows (I say small, they are about 13 feet tall by
2 foot 6 inches wide each, and there are eight of them, along with a 12
foot square big one at the end.) with a small thermal gap and a 12 inch
audio gap keep enough noise out?", and "Will I get permission from the
authorities for the modifications I intend to make". The building is
listed as part of the local heritage, so modifications have to be as
small as possible and in keeping with the character of the building.

With care, I can get the full on large room, a completely dead vocal
booth sound, or a small, intimate space for a chamber ensemble or pop
group with no structural alterations, and possibly a few movable
screens. If I need it *really* quiet, then the control room will have
good isolation from the recording space, and there will be wiring to
temporarily move the recorder into the main space to avoid monitoring in
the same space as the artiste(s). With time to prepare, I'd guess a few
dozen bolsters (Large round cushions about the size and shape of a human
torso) in the pews might even deaden the large space enough to make the
"dead, large space" people happy.

I've got 8 channels of recording gear already, and a reasonable set of
condenser and a few moving coil mics. I've used them mobile to good
effect. 16 channels wouldn't be hard to do. Any more will have to wait
for a few decent gigs. The pipe organ is repairable and can be converted
from a manual pump to electric, mounted outside the recording space, if
the vendor decides it's too expensive to move out. There's a handy tower
for that, which is currently empty apart from a staircase.



--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/4/2019 7:05 AM, Bill wrote:
I'm firmly in the leave the warts in camp (within reason), and have a
particular fetish about being able to hear perspective in a recording.
Particularly when mixing straight down to stereo (eg for live broadcast)
in pop, country or folk music, where I hate the way that many engineers
spend ages faffing about with multiple drum mics, leaving little time
for the rest of the sound check.

This is just about the only thing I do. Drums, if they show up at all,
get a kick, snare, and overhead mic. And, of course, if it's an outdoor
show, there's plenty of noise that doesn't come from the instruments.

Do I expect anyone to listen to the recording over and over like they do
with pop music? Nope. Maybe listen to it three or four times over the
next 20 years to remind them of the fun they had seeing the band on
stage. Or maybe listen to a song a few times in order to learn it - so
the vocals have to be good.

Sound check? Who gets a sound check?


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

[John Williamson]

On 04/07/2019 13:10, Mike Rivers wrote:


Sound check? Who gets a sound check?


Very big grin

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 06:08:23 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote:

On 7/4/2019 4:19 AM, John Williamson wrote:
I have listened in the past to the same choir performing the same
programme in a large, fairly empty church and a modern, dead space,
where sound reinforcement had to be used, and while the former sounded
"live", the latter sounded as though they were playing a CD through the
PA system.

And this "dead space" sound is what those who want to get rid of all
warts and blemishes want to hear. It's a matter of conditioning. When
mowing the lawn, they'd prefer hearing a CD played through earbuds than
enjoy a live band playing on the porch. Lawn mower engines are SOOOOO
annoying!

Don't be absurd. Many noises are caused by poor equipment or technique and can be
minimized. The organ blower mentioned earlier is such. In the case you mention of
mowing the lawn and a CD vs a live band, if I wanted to hear the music, I'd go with
the band. I would not consider the mower as an artifact of the music and so I'd turn
off the mower. If I can't turn off the mower, I would, in fact, prefer a high end over
ear headphone with a well-made CD of the band. To me, that sound would be superior to
the band with a loud lawn mower drowning them out. Best way to hear the band, of
course, would be in Boston Symphony Hall.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/1/2019 10:39 AM, Ty Ford wrote:
I did a live session with a church organ and was concerned about the blower and valve noise. The client said, "It's fine!! Part of the performance.!!"

I feel the same about finger and pick noise with an acoustic guitar.
Some people just don't get it, though.

Valve noise is part of the performance. The blower noise is mostly
uncorrelated, though. Blower noise varies a lot in different places
in the room, though, so you can sometimes move stuff around to deal
with it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , wrote:

I agree you can't get a perfect recording, but I want to hear as closely as possible what
the compser heard in his mind when he wrote it down. I don't think he was hearing blowers
and guitar squeaks and such as part of his work, any more than the pops and clicks of a scratchy
old LP record.

Talcum powder will fix those string squeaks with less effort than CEDAR....

Room acoustics are a reality and have to be seriously addressed, especially for a live performance.
I don't know if close-miking or careful placements of several mics gives a performance or recording
closer to what the composer envisioned, but I'm in favor of whichever does.

It goes beyond that. Some people like to sit in the balcony, some people like
to stand right up in the conductor's podium. Which is the "correct" sound
that the conductor would like?

"Mozart says play it like this... doot, doot, doot. He's dead now. Play
it legato." -- Isaac Stern

Brahms would have -loved- orchestral overdubs and spot miking. Blow that
bass up until it's fifty feet wide and stretched across the room! Beethoven
likely would not have approved of the same thing. Problem is, we can't
be sure, because they're dead now.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:

In the case of much classical music, the composer hadn't even considered
the possibility of there being any sort of 'recording'. So the
performance 'artifacts' were expected.

A really really good discussion of this is in Phillips' _Performing Music
In the Age of recording_ which has some digressions but is well worth
reading for anyone interested in western art music.

And even in current times such music is composed with the aim being
performance, not manicured manufactured recordings.

Not half enough, if you ask me.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:

The big questions, only one of which can probably only be guessed at
when answering , seem to be "Will extra double glazing on the relatively
small stained glass windows (I say small, they are about 13 feet tall by
2 foot 6 inches wide each, and there are eight of them, along with a 12
foot square big one at the end.) with a small thermal gap and a 12 inch
audio gap keep enough noise out?",

Yes, but it will change the sound of the reflections off the windows, which
may or may not be an issue.

Get an acoustician in who is familar with studio requirements, just to take
a quick look-through. There are plenty of big names out there... call one
of them and ask if they can recommend someone nearby.
--scott

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

[Ty Ford[_2_]]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 7:59:48 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 04/07/2019 12:05, Bill wrote:

This is now well away from the original question. I would hate this
discussion to deter John from his hopes and ambitions for the church.

Grin I'm not being deterred, I asked the question to gather
information about attitudes and possibilities, and that's coming in nicely.

The big questions, only one of which can probably only be guessed at
when answering , seem to be "Will extra double glazing on the relatively
small stained glass windows (I say small, they are about 13 feet tall by
2 foot 6 inches wide each, and there are eight of them, along with a 12
foot square big one at the end.) with a small thermal gap and a 12 inch
audio gap keep enough noise out?", and "Will I get permission from the
authorities for the modifications I intend to make". The building is
listed as part of the local heritage, so modifications have to be as
small as possible and in keeping with the character of the building.

With care, I can get the full on large room, a completely dead vocal
booth sound, or a small, intimate space for a chamber ensemble or pop
group with no structural alterations, and possibly a few movable
screens. If I need it *really* quiet, then the control room will have
good isolation from the recording space, and there will be wiring to
temporarily move the recorder into the main space to avoid monitoring in
the same space as the artiste(s). With time to prepare, I'd guess a few
dozen bolsters (Large round cushions about the size and shape of a human
torso) in the pews might even deaden the large space enough to make the
"dead, large space" people happy.

I've got 8 channels of recording gear already, and a reasonable set of
condenser and a few moving coil mics. I've used them mobile to good
effect. 16 channels wouldn't be hard to do. Any more will have to wait
for a few decent gigs. The pipe organ is repairable and can be converted
from a manual pump to electric, mounted outside the recording space, if
the vendor decides it's too expensive to move out. There's a handy tower
for that, which is currently empty apart from a staircase.



--
Tciao for Now!

John.

I've done 3-4 CDs worth for a local A Capella Madrigal group. One of the six members is affiliated with a local Episcopalian church. The Church is very big and the congregation sitting area is (guessing) over a hundred feet long. We set up in the chancel, past the rail.

I use a pair of schoeps cmc641. I listen on headphones. On the faster tempo tunes, I move the mics in to keep the slop from munging up the sound. Slower tempos, I move the mics back a bit during rehearsal until I get slightly less room than I think I want. If it's too dry, I add some in post. I also listen for Ss and Ts at the beginning and end of phrases. If they are sloppy, I just pick one and tighten them up.

Two tracks does it.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[John Williamson]

On 04/07/2019 16:19, Ty Ford wrote:

I've done 3-4 CDs worth for a local A Capella Madrigal group. One of the six members is affiliated with a local Episcopalian church. The Church is very big and the congregation sitting area is (guessing) over a hundred feet long. We set up in the chancel, past the rail.

I use a pair of schoeps cmc641. I listen on headphones. On the faster tempo tunes, I move the mics in to keep the slop from munging up the sound. Slower tempos, I move the mics back a bit during rehearsal until I get slightly less room than I think I want. If it's too dry, I add some in post. I also listen for Ss and Ts at the beginning and end of phrases. If they are sloppy, I just pick one and tighten them up.

Two tracks does it.

Thanks for that. I like the sound of a single pair as well, when I can
get away with it. ;-)

The church I'm thinking about isn't quite so big, as I said upthread
somewhere, it's 69 feet long and 36 feet wide, with a 13 foot wide
mezzanine on columns about 10 feet up. Under the mezzanine is nice for
intimate stuff..

I have, with some success, used a Zoom H2 in four channel mode in
similar circumstances to yours, and used the rear mics to suppress some
of the room noise by inverting and combining tracks. The choir seemed
very happy and listening on headphones in a locked bedroom before
sending the result off, I jumped out of my skin when someone walked past
me in the gap between songs on the unedited version. Ghosts...


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 04/07/2019 15:08, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:

The big questions, only one of which can probably only be guessed at
when answering , seem to be "Will extra double glazing on the relatively
small stained glass windows (I say small, they are about 13 feet tall by
2 foot 6 inches wide each, and there are eight of them, along with a 12
foot square big one at the end.) with a small thermal gap and a 12 inch
audio gap keep enough noise out?",

Yes, but it will change the sound of the reflections off the windows, which
may or may not be an issue.

Get an acoustician in who is familar with studio requirements, just to take
a quick look-through. There are plenty of big names out there... call one
of them and ask if they can recommend someone nearby.
--scott

I'll see what happens with my offer first. There's a week or two to go
yet, it's fairly quiet already, and will be quieter after I seal the
doors properly. Both sets are like an airlock, so using sealing foam on
the inside pairs will help a lot, though may mean I need forced
ventilation if I get an audience in.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[gray_wolf]

On 7/4/2019 8:47 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , wrote:

I agree you can't get a perfect recording, but I want to hear as closely as possible what
the compser heard in his mind when he wrote it down. I don't think he was hearing blowers
and guitar squeaks and such as part of his work, any more than the pops and clicks of a scratchy
old LP record.

Talcum powder will fix those string squeaks with less effort than CEDAR....


I seem to recall hearing that some players have used nose grease on their
fingers to stop the squeaks.:-)

[gray_wolf]

On 7/4/2019 8:49 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:

In the case of much classical music, the composer hadn't even considered
the possibility of there being any sort of 'recording'. So the
performance 'artifacts' were expected.

A really really good discussion of this is in Phillips' _Performing Music
In the Age of recording_ which has some digressions but is well worth
reading for anyone interested in western art music.

And even in current times such music is composed with the aim being
performance, not manicured manufactured recordings.

Not half enough, if you ask me.
--scott

I was listening to some Benny Goodman big band stuff. Those guys played!!
How could you record that in a studio?

[John Williamson]

On 05/07/2019 05:16, gray_wolf wrote:

I was listening to some Benny Goodman big band stuff. Those guys played!!
How could you record that in a studio?

To a degree, that even applies to modern stuff. My favourite example is
War Of The Worlds, originally recorded in one hit by Jeff Wayne and
pthers, then as a series of sessions later on, with the musicians on e
their ownin the studio. In the early one, the musicians feed off each
other and are obviously enjoying themselves, whereas the later one
sounds like just another job. Admittedly, there are a few fluffed notes
in the early one that aren't there in the later one, but they don't seem
to matter much, if at all.

At the moment, my proposed "studio" has (Albeit not too comfy
yet)seating for a hundred or so, so that may be of use.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 5/07/2019 7:02 PM, John Williamson wrote:
\

At the moment, my proposed "studio" has (Albeit not too comfy
yet)seating for a hundred or so, so that may be of use.


Hard pews ?

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 05/07/2019 09:13, geoff wrote:
On 5/07/2019 7:02 PM, John Williamson wrote:
\

At the moment, my proposed "studio" has (Albeit not too comfy
yet)seating for a hundred or so, so that may be of use.


Hard pews ?

I can hire out cushions. Grin

I'll get some decent padding on them. The current stuff has squished
itself down to an inch or two.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

gray_wolf wrote:
On 7/4/2019 8:49 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:

In the case of much classical music, the composer hadn't even considered
the possibility of there being any sort of 'recording'. So the
performance 'artifacts' were expected.

A really really good discussion of this is in Phillips' _Performing Music
In the Age of recording_ which has some digressions but is well worth
reading for anyone interested in western art music.

And even in current times such music is composed with the aim being
performance, not manicured manufactured recordings.

Not half enough, if you ask me.

I was listening to some Benny Goodman big band stuff. Those guys played!!
How could you record that in a studio?

The same way the Goodman band did. With a couple microphones and a whole
lot of musicians and charts.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson wrote:
On 05/07/2019 09:13, geoff wrote:
On 5/07/2019 7:02 PM, John Williamson wrote:

At the moment, my proposed "studio" has (Albeit not too comfy
yet)seating for a hundred or so, so that may be of use.


Hard pews ?

I can hire out cushions. Grin

I'll get some decent padding on them. The current stuff has squished
itself down to an inch or two.

It's not necessarily a bad thing.... it will greatly extend your reverb
time and make for a much brighter reverb, compared with having people in
the seats (and people will absorb far more than an equivalent area of
padding too). But that can be useful, as long as it doesn't create slap
echo or flutter echo.

Good rooms come in all sorts... some are dull, some are bright, some are
dead, some are very live, but they are all useful for something.

A good studio has a variety of different acoustics, or a hall where the
acoustics can be controlled to make a dead but bright room, or a live but
dark room or any other combination.

The only thing all of these good rooms have in common is that they do not
have slap echo, flutter echo, or a lot of short reflections.
--scott

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

[Ty Ford[_2_]]

On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 12:16:15 AM UTC-4, gray_wolf wrote:

I was listening to some Benny Goodman big band stuff. Those guys played!!
How could you record that in a studio?

I have a client who brings me his adaptations of classic songbook pieces that he orchestrates in ScoreWriter. He has a love of Stan Kenton. I read up on him a bit. It seems he started as a dance band and evolved into a Concert Band. The chords he made with his horns was pretty remarkable. I think he was "The Wall Of Sound" guy before Phil Spector.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Ty Ford[_2_]]

On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 8:53:35 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
On 05/07/2019 09:13, geoff wrote:
On 5/07/2019 7:02 PM, John Williamson wrote:

At the moment, my proposed "studio" has (Albeit not too comfy
yet)seating for a hundred or so, so that may be of use.


Hard pews ?

I can hire out cushions. Grin

I'll get some decent padding on them. The current stuff has squished
itself down to an inch or two.

It's not necessarily a bad thing.... it will greatly extend your reverb
time and make for a much brighter reverb, compared with having people in
the seats (and people will absorb far more than an equivalent area of
padding too). But that can be useful, as long as it doesn't create slap
echo or flutter echo.

Good rooms come in all sorts... some are dull, some are bright, some are
dead, some are very live, but they are all useful for something.

A good studio has a variety of different acoustics, or a hall where the
acoustics can be controlled to make a dead but bright room, or a live but
dark room or any other combination.

The only thing all of these good rooms have in common is that they do not
have slap echo, flutter echo, or a lot of short reflections.
--scott

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

The church where we recorded the madrigals, St. John's Church a mile or so outside of the beltway on the west side of Baltimore, in Ellicott City, used to be shorter. In the main web site picture, you can see by the roof how the length was doubled at some point. http://stjohnsec.org/

The organist and I were talking one day about recording her. The keyboard and pipes are upstairs in the front of the church, at the opposite end of the building from the altar. I asked her to play while I found a sweet spot. The sound was horrible as I began walking from the altar to the front of the church where the pipes were.

I was getting the direct sound of the pipes plus the slap back from the altar and chancery. I kept walking towards the front and when I reached the mid point, the direct sound of the pipes was loud enough to overwhelm the slap back.

I stopped there and told her what I had experienced. She said that's where the altar used to be before the church was added on to.

[Bill[_20_]]

In message , gray_wolf
writes
On 7/4/2019 8:49 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:

In the case of much classical music, the composer hadn't even considered
the possibility of there being any sort of 'recording'. So the
performance 'artifacts' were expected.
A really really good discussion of this is in Phillips' _Performing
Music
In the Age of recording_ which has some digressions but is well worth
reading for anyone interested in western art music.

And even in current times such music is composed with the aim being
performance, not manicured manufactured recordings.
Not half enough, if you ask me.
--scott

I was listening to some Benny Goodman big band stuff. Those guys
played!!
How could you record that in a studio?

I (used to) love bluegrass music.

In my opinion, some of the best ever recordings were those issued on
Starday of Jim Eanes and his band.
It is well documented, and was confirmed when I was involved in
recording an interview with Jim, that they used 2 mics. One figure of 8
for the band facing each other, plus one for the upright bass.
These were done in a room above a radio station next to a tyre fitting
depot. They recorded in the lunch break of the banjo player, who at the
time was a tyre fitter there.
The recordings have dynamics, perspective, drive and a great sense of
"air". Probably the band brought meaning to the statement "play hungry".

Much current bluegrass that I have heard features banjos and the rest
playing so fast and incessantly that the banjo and over all sound
becomes a flat drone. Everything sounds close mic'ed and merges into a
flat seamless machine-like dullness. It's all very clever and
technically brilliant, but imo pointless.

I should perhaps say that I listen to the old stuff on disk, but hear
the newer stuff via internet radio. I don't think the difference is the
fault of Optimod, though (if that is used on the internet feed), as the
older recordings still sound good on that internet feed.
--
Bill