You Can't Polish A Turd ....
Nah, a good recording is when the band are performing well, and the gear is good enough to capture it, and this includes microphone placements.
If the initial capture is no good, then no amount of effects will fix it.
If the capture is good, then it is best to do the least effects possible - some compression and peak limiting is ok, but can be (and is) easily overdone.
I have recordings of bands that I know, that are natural sounding and they are great, unlike the likes of the hugely overdone Ricky Martin pap.
Effects can be for hiding warts, but it don't always work.
Eric.
Nah, a good recording is when the band are performing well, and the gear is good enough to capture it, and this includes microphone placements.
If the initial capture is no good, then no amount of effects will fix it.
If the capture is good, then it is best to do the least effects possible - some compression and peak limiting is ok, but can be (and is) easily overdone.
I have recordings of bands that I know, that are natural sounding and they are great, unlike the likes of the hugely overdone Ricky Martin pap.
Effects can be for hiding warts, but it don't always work.
Eric.
The "pop" sound
I think that you have to clearly seperate multi-tracked pop/rock music from traditional music.
In classical music, the performance is what it is. The goal is to get that performance to tape (hard disc?) as accurately as possible.
In jazz, it's much the same thing.
Pop and rock, on the other hand, has always been about presenting an artificial sound. It has only gotten worse (better?) since multitracks came to be.
Compression/limiting, reverb, etc. are all a part of the sonic palette, and are as much a part of the finished product as the music itself.
Popular music and audio quality (from an audiophile point of view) are mutually exclusive. How can we even present a straight-faced argument on natural sound when the recording techniques used are not at all natural?
How many of us, when listening to a drum kit, for example, will listen from the drummers perspective? Would you go and stick your ear up to the drum, inches from where it is being hit? That's how it's being recorded! Same for a guitar amp... how many people listen to an amp cranked to the max with their ear 1" from the speaker cone? At least with classical music there is the possibility of hearing a recorded piece of music that has the potential to sound like what you would hear live.
I can guarantee that none of you would like to hear a pop or rock recording where compression and close-miking techniques are not used in the process. The vocals would be distant sounding. The mix would lack punch. Everything would sound flat and lifeless.
On the other hand, I have to agree that the mastering studio is responsible for murdering a lot of decent recordings. I think that the use of overall compression on a mix is a mistake, and is only an attempt to compensate for a bad mix. Mastering, in general, should not be necessary if the producer is doing his job. The only thing they should need to do is the edit the final track arrangement, and put the correct amount of space between tracks, etc.
Just my $.02
I think that you have to clearly seperate multi-tracked pop/rock music from traditional music.
In classical music, the performance is what it is. The goal is to get that performance to tape (hard disc?) as accurately as possible.
In jazz, it's much the same thing.
Pop and rock, on the other hand, has always been about presenting an artificial sound. It has only gotten worse (better?) since multitracks came to be.
Compression/limiting, reverb, etc. are all a part of the sonic palette, and are as much a part of the finished product as the music itself.
Popular music and audio quality (from an audiophile point of view) are mutually exclusive. How can we even present a straight-faced argument on natural sound when the recording techniques used are not at all natural?
How many of us, when listening to a drum kit, for example, will listen from the drummers perspective? Would you go and stick your ear up to the drum, inches from where it is being hit? That's how it's being recorded! Same for a guitar amp... how many people listen to an amp cranked to the max with their ear 1" from the speaker cone? At least with classical music there is the possibility of hearing a recorded piece of music that has the potential to sound like what you would hear live.
I can guarantee that none of you would like to hear a pop or rock recording where compression and close-miking techniques are not used in the process. The vocals would be distant sounding. The mix would lack punch. Everything would sound flat and lifeless.
On the other hand, I have to agree that the mastering studio is responsible for murdering a lot of decent recordings. I think that the use of overall compression on a mix is a mistake, and is only an attempt to compensate for a bad mix. Mastering, in general, should not be necessary if the producer is doing his job. The only thing they should need to do is the edit the final track arrangement, and put the correct amount of space between tracks, etc.
Just my $.02
i agree on most, but even classical and jazz recordings are "artificial" in many ways too.....very few are recorded the way you think - with one stereomic...!!!!! and mastering is certanly needed - but perhaps in a more "gentle" way....please check out mr.katz about mastering, he knows some trixxx.......
http://www.digido.com/
http://www.digido.com/
tbla said:i agree on most, but even classical and jazz recordings are "artificial" in many ways too.....very few are recorded the way you think - with one stereomic...!!!!! and mastering is certanly needed - but perhaps in a more "gentle" way....please check out mr.katz about mastering, he knows some trixxx.......
http://www.digido.com/
Interesting... I haven't read a lot about classical production. I know that some like to close-mike as well as use the stereo approach. I like some of the purist techniques, like the "simulated head" type stereo microphones, which I've read has very accurate imaging.
Mastering engineers obviously are needed to an extent, but my point was that if the original engineer/producer got it right, there is very little left to tweak.
Someone should start a thread on good and bad recordings for rock. That would definitely be helpful (although the Tori Amos thread proves that not everyone hears things the same way).
Steve
Well, I suppose recording itself is artificial if you get down to it.....
"Dummy head" microphones give great imaging if you listen with headphones, but don't translate well to speakers. They have generally fallen out of favor these days for that reason.
IMHO most of the best classical music recordings aren't done with "purist" recording techniques either.
Take any Wolf Erichson recording of Gustav Leonhardt for example.
Michael
Schoeps Makes the KFM 6 binaural microphone that is an attempt at making an image that better translates outside the headphone environment. They also have a variation for surround recordings. I think that the KFM 6 is what Jerry Bruck w/ a Nagra-D used to record the cello recordings I mentioned in an earlier post:
Attachments
My last thought single point recording techniques:
My last thought single point recording techniques:
My personal favorite technique for stereo recording is often an M-S pair (nothing to do with micro soft, Mid-Side pair).
Made with a pair of Neumann U-87 or Schoeps collets. This technique works great for making recordings at a single point source and unlike a tightly placed X-Y pair allows for some control over presence vs. ambiance in the post production process.
I once purchased and was very happy with a Neumann RSM-191. It was a neat microphone in that it had a great sound and flexibility. Its unique-est property was that the center capsule had a hyper-cardioid setting allowing it to function as a sort of stereo shotgun mike that can still be stuffed into a Rycote zeplin.
While all of these microphones have the ability to let even myself make a respectable recording, none of them can be regarded as a panacea-ic solution. Salesmen like to slap a set of headphones on your head and send you out in the world with a DAT machine as an example of how good they are (I did mention that I had bought one, thanks Greg). The first impression is always so shocking because of the absence of unnatural phase cancellations between the capsules.
Many times they can be deployed as the total solution. Other times a more complex solution is required to provide an image that better aproximates what the artist(s) and producers are trying to achieve.
My last thought single point recording techniques:
My personal favorite technique for stereo recording is often an M-S pair (nothing to do with micro soft, Mid-Side pair).
Made with a pair of Neumann U-87 or Schoeps collets. This technique works great for making recordings at a single point source and unlike a tightly placed X-Y pair allows for some control over presence vs. ambiance in the post production process.
I once purchased and was very happy with a Neumann RSM-191. It was a neat microphone in that it had a great sound and flexibility. Its unique-est property was that the center capsule had a hyper-cardioid setting allowing it to function as a sort of stereo shotgun mike that can still be stuffed into a Rycote zeplin.
While all of these microphones have the ability to let even myself make a respectable recording, none of them can be regarded as a panacea-ic solution. Salesmen like to slap a set of headphones on your head and send you out in the world with a DAT machine as an example of how good they are (I did mention that I had bought one, thanks Greg). The first impression is always so shocking because of the absence of unnatural phase cancellations between the capsules.
Many times they can be deployed as the total solution. Other times a more complex solution is required to provide an image that better aproximates what the artist(s) and producers are trying to achieve.
Attachments
Yeah I think Jerry Bruck came up with a surround version that uses additional figure 8 capsules on each side.... looks cool at least 
I'm a big fan of M-S too as a "general" stereo pattern. But on its own or as a main pair for a big group (orchestra, choir, etc) and you start to get phase problems.
My 2¢
Michael
I'm a big fan of M-S too as a "general" stereo pattern. But on its own or as a main pair for a big group (orchestra, choir, etc) and you start to get phase problems.
My 2¢
Michael
I've had pretty limited experience here, Frank, but what little I had included comparing recordings to mike feed with perhaps a dozen recording systems. The best analog system I heard (an old tube Ampex, half track, 15 ips, that had been thoroughly refurbished) was trivially easy for me to distinguish from the mike feed, even blind. I can't say that about most of the actual 16 bit or better digital systems (as opposed to "16 bit systems"). I can understand well a preference for analog recording; macquilage for the defects of transducers and electronics.
I saw an interview and article with Peter Sprey in Positive Feedback. Here's a guy doing some interesting things with mikes and recording, things that make an enormous (I'd say. "most enormous"), totally uncontroversial difference, and the moron interviewing him spends the whole time talking about wire.
I saw an interview and article with Peter Sprey in Positive Feedback. Here's a guy doing some interesting things with mikes and recording, things that make an enormous (I'd say. "most enormous"), totally uncontroversial difference, and the moron interviewing him spends the whole time talking about wire.
TASTE MATTERS...
Hi,
Colourations from electronic devices may be obvious, but what is most bothering IMHO is their impact on our enjoyment of music.
Can we devise a digital recording system that is both less coloured and more musically enjoyable?
Up to this very day, I doubt it.
Personnaly, I'd rather live with a bit of colouration than with the minced meat digital recordings seem to sound like.
I stand with Steve Eddy here, in that musical enjoyement should prevail.
Nine out of ten, I get more out of analogue than digital.
Am I suffering from digititis or am I just spoiled by my analogue gear?
Recording engineers should learn from the past masterpieces for, to my ears at least, most fabs were made in the late fifties and when played back on top gear are just fantastic.
Either way I just hear things I don't like when analogue has been converted to digital...its' got rubbed off its soul and has ceased to be music.
Cheers,
Hi,
Colourations from electronic devices may be obvious, but what is most bothering IMHO is their impact on our enjoyment of music.
Can we devise a digital recording system that is both less coloured and more musically enjoyable?
Up to this very day, I doubt it.
Personnaly, I'd rather live with a bit of colouration than with the minced meat digital recordings seem to sound like.
I stand with Steve Eddy here, in that musical enjoyement should prevail.
Nine out of ten, I get more out of analogue than digital.
Am I suffering from digititis or am I just spoiled by my analogue gear?
Recording engineers should learn from the past masterpieces for, to my ears at least, most fabs were made in the late fifties and when played back on top gear are just fantastic.
Either way I just hear things I don't like when analogue has been converted to digital...its' got rubbed off its soul and has ceased to be music.
Cheers,
Re: TASTE MATTERS...
Well, if musical enjoyment is to prevail, you wouldn't be asking such questions, yes? Become a bona fide Hedonist Subjectivist and free yourself from the shackles of peer pressure and insecurity.
If you're having a bit of trouble making the full commitment, might I suggest a re-reading of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged? That should get you in the mood.
se
fdegrove said:
Well, if musical enjoyment is to prevail, you wouldn't be asking such questions, yes? Become a bona fide Hedonist Subjectivist and free yourself from the shackles of peer pressure and insecurity.
If you're having a bit of trouble making the full commitment, might I suggest a re-reading of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged? That should get you in the mood.
se
I always thought that M-S was the generic implementation of Blumlein...
A good read here about Alan Blumlein and some patent issues:
http://www.ambiophonics.org/blumlein.htm
This link:
http://homerecording.about.com/library/weekly/aa101799.htm
Has a nice brief description by Wendy Carlos. In this description it describes two plate condensers (think U-87) each set to figure 8 and set up as x-y. It also points out however that one mic can be set to cardioid.
Interesting reading. Thanks fdgrove, I think I'll do some more googling on this guy.
Ive heard stories of such machines set up for 1/2 track 1/2" tape running at 30 IPS...
There were also 1" 4 track machines.
Dolby SR or not, these machines are monstrous. They live in the same realm with the same happy madmen who search out and optimize old Fairchild compressors. Ready to shell out $25K for a 40-year-old compressor? Makes George Massenburg and EveAnna Manlys gear (every bit as good as the Fairchilds) seem bargain priced.
Then on the flipside, there is performance. Ive got a CD with a mono transcription of an old Miles Davis performance on it. Its Miles at his best and I doubt I'll ever get tired of it. Too bad the PA at the live venue had a 120 Hz hum all the way through it. A real travesty, and yet Id bet that this one performance has outsold everything that Bella Fleck has done to date. (I'm not Bella bashing, like him, just needed and interesting reference point).
my last thoughts on binaural, promise
One last thought, I promise, on binaural recording. I think Sennheiser makes a microphone that is worn like a walkman headphone that produces good results.
I'm pretty sure I seen DIYaudio reference to forum readers doing this with pairs of the Linkwitz electret condenser modification.
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/sys_test.htm#Mic
Likely lots of good fun for just a few bucks.
Guess I like microphones.
One last thought, I promise, on binaural recording. I think Sennheiser makes a microphone that is worn like a walkman headphone that produces good results.
I'm pretty sure I seen DIYaudio reference to forum readers doing this with pairs of the Linkwitz electret condenser modification.
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/sys_test.htm#Mic
Likely lots of good fun for just a few bucks.
Guess I like microphones.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.