With a multi-microphone recording simultaneously in one room there is the danger of recording the bass in similar amplitude but very different phase. This would cause deletions when just mixing it together.
I don't know how far down true stereo microphone setups can detect the direction of the bass, but I would be very interested.
which would explain the prevalence of cardioid mics used for multi mic setups in concert halls with minimal gain and close mic distance; along with overheads, to minimise this effect
Not so easy to say from Youtube sound, but I think it has much less of this "Lexicon signature", this excessive smoothness in the reverb tail mother nature and the Quantec don't have.
Now it's really getting OT?
Hi,
There is some old work on the relation in stereo speaker reproduction between the amount of "pan" the virtual image receives and either dB difference or difference in arrival time / phaseshift at a given frequency.
This suggests that 18dB difference in Level between channels or 1.5ms difference in arrival time between channels deflects a signal fully towards one speaker. I am unsure what the signal frequency was though, likely "midrange".
Due to their very long wavelength low frequencies have not a lot difference in either amplitude or arrival time with modern closely spaced cardiode minimalist recording arrangements.
On the other hand, recordings using widely spaced Omni's have excellent low frequency differentiation, but the higher frequencies sound diffuse and phasey.
The old "Decca Tree" was a kind of midway option where the center mic gives better central imaging and reduces phaseyness.
I guess combining a ORTF or similar "closely spaced cardiode" array with small diaphragm mics as central part of a decca tree; with wide space large diaphragm omni's in the outrigger positions; with all four feeds recorded seperatly may allow a final mixdown into 2 channels that combines the best of both.
I'd probably for completeness throw in an extra two Omni's further back from the Decca Tree plus a "crossed figure 8" in the center position.
Modern digital recordings should allow time alignment for center-stage signals so that mixing the various signals would not produce too much destructive interference.
In fact, I am surprised I have not come across any published reference to such a recording setup, maybe it is because my idea does not work or whoever uses it whishes it kept secret.
Ciao T
There is some old work on the relation in stereo speaker reproduction between the amount of "pan" the virtual image receives and either dB difference or difference in arrival time / phaseshift at a given frequency.
This suggests that 18dB difference in Level between channels or 1.5ms difference in arrival time between channels deflects a signal fully towards one speaker. I am unsure what the signal frequency was though, likely "midrange".
Due to their very long wavelength low frequencies have not a lot difference in either amplitude or arrival time with modern closely spaced cardiode minimalist recording arrangements.
On the other hand, recordings using widely spaced Omni's have excellent low frequency differentiation, but the higher frequencies sound diffuse and phasey.
The old "Decca Tree" was a kind of midway option where the center mic gives better central imaging and reduces phaseyness.
I guess combining a ORTF or similar "closely spaced cardiode" array with small diaphragm mics as central part of a decca tree; with wide space large diaphragm omni's in the outrigger positions; with all four feeds recorded seperatly may allow a final mixdown into 2 channels that combines the best of both.
I'd probably for completeness throw in an extra two Omni's further back from the Decca Tree plus a "crossed figure 8" in the center position.
Modern digital recordings should allow time alignment for center-stage signals so that mixing the various signals would not produce too much destructive interference.
In fact, I am surprised I have not come across any published reference to such a recording setup, maybe it is because my idea does not work or whoever uses it whishes it kept secret.
Ciao T
Against my principles no test report but a quote from Bob Katz:
Read about "Compression, Stereo Image, and Depth" on page 11.
http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/bobkatz.pdf
Read about "Compression, Stereo Image, and Depth" on page 11.
http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/bobkatz.pdf
Last edited:
an alternative with full range "ceiling flooder" could be tilting it a bit to aim it in such a way so that the ceiling would reflect the purest on-axis impulse towards the listener, as on the picture
Attachments
Good read. It's basically a summary of his book which describes in detail what function mastering once had. Reality is that home recording equipment has become so cheap that a lot of mixes made by amateurs are already heavily distorted before they even reach the desk aof a mastering engineer. The same is true for a lot of "professional" productions. One of the worst productions ever made is probably Metallica's "Death Magnetic".
This video compares the CD version to a less compressed one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRyIACDCc1I
Last edited:
One shouldnt confuse artistic expression with mastering, only because the first can utilise a sound which sounds like a bad example of the second. Metal and other "extreme" music styles use severe compression and distortion as an integral part of the music. See Merzbow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia as an example where noise is artistic output. Seeing artistic expression and mastering as black and white doesnt hold up in our modern times. Its all grey.
Well personally I don't think we should be judging art based on what paint brush was used. I understand though that you are saying the method is not effective and just bad for the end product.
Katz's book makes very good arguments as to why you don't want to squash and overly brighten your mixes - it really doesn't get the effect these engineers are targeting.
I think there will always be a role for the mastering engineer even if in some exceptional case they are only serving as a second set of ears. Mixing and Mastering to me require two very different mindsets - generally a mastering engineer will be too conservative to be a good mixing engineer and a good mixing engineer wont be anal enough to be a good mastering engineer. There are always exceptions of course.
Katz's book makes very good arguments as to why you don't want to squash and overly brighten your mixes - it really doesn't get the effect these engineers are targeting.
I think there will always be a role for the mastering engineer even if in some exceptional case they are only serving as a second set of ears. Mixing and Mastering to me require two very different mindsets - generally a mastering engineer will be too conservative to be a good mixing engineer and a good mixing engineer wont be anal enough to be a good mastering engineer. There are always exceptions of course.
One should be careful with these Youtube videos. I listened to such a video at home and at a friend's computer who hadn't updated his player for years. The reality is much, much worse than one can hear with the current Realplayer. It seems that this beast compresses a lot.
This is done by the Carlsson or the corner speaker with horn tweeter I suggested earlier in this thread. The only advantage of the pure CFS I see is the tolerance of extremely poor recordings, also compared to conventional speakers.
While theoretically I see where you are coming from and it seems to be the general simplified philosophy of mixers who are starting out I don't think this is true across the board.
Just to give an example you can't say that it's objectively better to use individual sends to reverb units on a multitrack level vs sending the entire 2 track. Of course reverb isn't exactly the role of the mastering engineer but I am just giving the first example that comes to mind where the theory "discrete is always better than summed processing" or the like.
It's basically the cause of what Linkwitz complains about studio recordings where it's a collage of different spaces interacting on the recording and not instruments within one space. If you send the entire 2 track to the reverb unit you get all the instruments in one space so you could make a convincing argument that in this case summed processing is better than discrete. It's not as flexible obviously but it's a somewhat more realistic approach.
Mastering engineers aren't exactly supposed to do a lot of shaping or changing. Just catch mistakes that you missed possibly in tonal balance and help the mix translate to many very different systems and not sound like crap on most all systems. It's a bit of an impossible feat with some mixes but you give them the right mix and they can work magic.
Think of it this way. You have a photograph. This photo is a very good photo except it needs a little bit of color correction (EQ) and contrast (dynamic range)to make it pop.
With modern technology I could extract the foreground, the background, and every object in the room to it's own track in photoshop. I could then adjust the colors contrast on all of these objects discretely. Does any of this in the end help to make a better picture or will it end up disjointed and mismatched? You could take this same analogy and think about multitrack recordings as well. Would you use a green screen and take individual photos of every object and then reassemble it back together in photoshop? Or would it be better in the end to just take the picture of everything all at once?
With modern technology I could extract the foreground, the background, and every object in the room to it's own track in photoshop. I could then adjust the colors contrast on all of these objects discretely. Does any of this in the end help to make a better picture or will it end up disjointed and mismatched? You could take this same analogy and think about multitrack recordings as well. Would you use a green screen and take individual photos of every object and then reassemble it back together in photoshop? Or would it be better in the end to just take the picture of everything all at once?
I agree there are no easy answers and no one approach is perfect. Even if there was a simple perfect approach to something it would quickly become a cliche. Art is tricky like that. I am actually a fan of surreal recordings first and realism second. I love abstract art and I think for the most part my recordings are more surreal than real. Although in a weird way to me surreal involves realism.
Last edited: