Interesting and amusing article that could provoke some discussion:

http://www.eltjohaselhoff.com/record...tic_guitar.htm

Nick Roche

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/7/nickrochemusic.htm

http://freespace.virgin.net/n.roche/

From the recording tips:
"Concentrating on the differences between the two spectra, we then used a 64
channel digital equalizer to shape the spectrum of the studio recording to
make it similar to the spectrum of the open field recording. This resulted
in a dramatic improvement!"

That's just great, except that you'll have to go through this same laborious
process for every conceivable location in the room. It'd be better to fix
the room and then just monitor what you're recording through a decent
system, making adjustments until the mic placement was favorable (which
would take less time with a decent sounding room).

On another note - acoustic instruments weren't meant to be heard in an
isolated environment or anechoic chambers or outside in a field with no
airplanes, insects or people for 40km around you. They're meant to sound
good in favorable rooms and USE the room sound as part of what they do.

Nothing beats a good room and if you have to resort to 64 friggin' channels
of software EQ in order to make something sound good, you're going about it
ass backwards.

dik

"Nick Roche" wrote in message
...
Interesting and amusing article that could provoke some discussion:

http://www.eltjohaselhoff.com/record...tic_guitar.htm

This article is clearly a mixed bag.

The good news is that it speaks highly of having good room acoustics, but
the bad news is that it makes what is IMO the mistake of suggesting that
recording in an anechoic chamber would be a good thing, and compounds that
mistake by suggesting that equalization can make things all better again.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Nick Roche" wrote in message
...
Interesting and amusing article that could provoke some discussion:

http://www.eltjohaselhoff.com/record...tic_guitar.htm

This article is clearly a mixed bag.

The good news is that it speaks highly of having good room acoustics, but
the bad news is that it makes what is IMO the mistake of suggesting that
recording in an anechoic chamber would be a good thing, and compounds that
mistake by suggesting that equalization can make things all better again.

Right. I stopped reading when I got to the following sentence early on:

"the studio will sound quite 'dead'. That's good - this way you won't
have undesired reverberation and echoes on your recording. You cannot
remove these once they are recorded, whereas you can easily add them
afterwards with an electronic reverb unit."

It would appear that the author has time-travelled here from the mid
70's when this was the accepted wisdom in studio design. IMHO, many of
the worst sounding pop recordings ever made were done under this
premise, which was thankfully discarded only a few years later and
replaced by an embracing of creative uses of room ambience effects.
That trend is still going strong after 25 years or so, and shows no
sign of significantly changing. Kinda tells you something there...

I hope he makes a safe return to 1976...

Ted Spencer, NYC
www.tedspencerrecording.com

"dikledoux" wrote in message
...


On another note - acoustic instruments weren't meant to be heard in an
isolated environment or anechoic chambers or outside in a field with no
airplanes, insects or people for 40km around you. They're meant to sound
good in favorable rooms and USE the room sound as part of what they do.


Ditto. A lot of talk, but no mention of hardwood floors.

Predrag

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:29:04 -0500, wrote
(in article . com):

It would appear that the author has time-travelled here from the mid
70's when this was the accepted wisdom in studio design. IMHO, many of
the worst sounding pop recordings ever made were done under this
premise, which was thankfully discarded only a few years later and
replaced by an embracing of creative uses of room ambience effects.
That trend is still going strong after 25 years or so, and shows no
sign of significantly changing. Kinda tells you something there...

I hope he makes a safe return to 1976...

Ted Spencer, NYC
www.tedspencerrecording.com


Hmmm. How old is the internet anyway? Maybe it was a post that's just been in
cyber-space, like junk in outer space.

Let the record indicate, I'm agreeing with Ted.

Regards,

Ty

-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com