Curly:
And you wont like it. Listen to a dummy head recording, with headphones. Its as close as you will get. Way to much reverb, not the right ballance (different than what the conductor hears). And for no extra charge; chair squeaks,throat clears, program pages flipping etc. For someone with such good audio memory and unbiased listening, Im suprised I have to tell you these things!
I want to reproduce what the mixer/producer(conductor,composer) heard in the mix. This is the way the music was meant to be heard.
And you wont like it. Listen to a dummy head recording, with headphones. Its as close as you will get. Way to much reverb, not the right ballance (different than what the conductor hears). And for no extra charge; chair squeaks,throat clears, program pages flipping etc. For someone with such good audio memory and unbiased listening, Im suprised I have to tell you these things!
I want to reproduce what the mixer/producer(conductor,composer) heard in the mix. This is the way the music was meant to be heard.
"Observe the woofer and see it move faster....."
WTis all that about?
That one eludes me too
How does a cap make a woofer move faster (at least to the eye)? Glad I was not the only one to see that one.If anyone still uses Mylar, more power to them
Polypropylene and Teflon have been around for a good while now. I thought that most people stopped using Mylar a long time ago, at least in audio anyway. Guess maybe some still do.I have never sat in the conductors chair. I guess you have lead a symphony! Wow that must be really cool.
In reviewing the amplifier construction, there's no doubt that a combination of nice to use (purpose made for audio) plus extremely clean (especially the multi-reg power circuits) will allow you to spot any small differences in your audio system.
OH!! Full range!! In that application, yes, your cotton and copper combo should be easily noticeable, and it certainly is plausible. Thank you so much for clearing that up!
P.S. Do you use a radio with that system?
That's your preference, not mine. The most delightful musical discovery in recent memory is the Internet Archive's selection of high resolution, minimally mic'd live shows. Hearing musicians as interacting musicians instead of production components, in a setting that reflects reality, is wonderful thing the odd drunken 'wooo!' does little to diminish.
No but I have talked to them about it in a mix session.
Just cant admit your wrong?
Did any of my reply make sense to you?
I spent over a year at the Banff school of fine arts, recording classical and jazz performaces 2 or 3 times a week, (mostly smaller ensembles, but we did record several full blown ochestras with an audience). With a lot of these performances we could experiment with different recording tecniques (mic types, placement, etc). Every recording with a conductor had a stereo mic over his head, plus many spot mics on the various sections. I have heard (thru a mic) what it sounds like at the conductors position. And it dosnt sound like anywhere in the audiance.(what a surprise). Do you find this hard to believe?
danielwritesbac ,
In addition to the full range coherence, the EnABL process buys me about another 50 dB down in coherent reproduction. This would be below Bruce Meyers comment, that most speakers have about 40 dB down from signal level, before you reach their limit of intelligibility.
I do have an FM radio I like a lot, a Nakamichi ST 3a. However, except for public radio Jazz, FM radio in the pacific NW is sadly lacking in usefulness. I am intensely jealous of my friend Romy, as he lives in Boston, with three superb FM radio stations to choose from.
Bud
In addition to the full range coherence, the EnABL process buys me about another 50 dB down in coherent reproduction. This would be below Bruce Meyers comment, that most speakers have about 40 dB down from signal level, before you reach their limit of intelligibility.
I do have an FM radio I like a lot, a Nakamichi ST 3a. However, except for public radio Jazz, FM radio in the pacific NW is sadly lacking in usefulness. I am intensely jealous of my friend Romy, as he lives in Boston, with three superb FM radio stations to choose from.
Bud
I have no experience listening from that location when attending the symphony. Why does my listening position make me wrong? I get to hear the nature sweetness of the strings, the winds are brilliant, but not overblown as many recordings tend to make them, everything has a sense of balance and integration. I am listening to the sound of the symphony.
I know full well that the best seats are in the lower section, but unfortunately, those chairs cost far more than I can afford to enjoy. I am glad that you can enjoy these seats. I am simply using my experiences in listening to real unamplified music as one of my references, not a dumby head and headphones thru a mixing board. I like single miked or as few mikes as possible for any recorded concerts. Sorry if that offended you in that I do not share your thoughts on what makes a great recording. Overly miked recordings are not what I like to listen to as a rule. Many are fantastic, but too many are just noise, as the sound blurs together as if it has been run thru a blender, to me personally. To each their own when it comes to music and how others like to listen to it.
I'm very grateful to you for answering the question of where a specialty speaker cable can have a noticeable effect.
Man, when you said "full range" I experienced an instant forehead slap reflex. lol! I was so stumped, but it was so simple. Thanks again!
Thank you for your answer on the radio question. I asked because I was wondering what sort of FM radio source could "stand up to" playback on a really revealing system.
As for my system, I'd rather use my old "opening day" 1975 Technics, but its not strong enough on reception so I do use the headphone jack output of a slightly modified Crosley Solo (because there's no static). Both are good, but the Technics is more real (fun-scary, like people IN the house).
Question: Do the desired Boston stations simulcast over the Internet?
Okay, I'm stumped again. Could you help me understand these 40db and 50db figures from your post?
My point was that listening to a concert live is inherintly different than listening to a recording, and if you recorded the exact sound at your seat and played it back exactly you would probably think it was not the same ( to much room, audiance noise(not just an ocassional hoot, but the weezing of the 75 year old right behind you eg.) and not enough detail ) Our brains filter and focus the sound at the concert. At home Im sure you would notice these things.
I like minimally miked recordings (of some genres) but never with an omni pair of mics in the audiance.(over the conductors head maybe).
I would agree with cbdb. And it's not something that is easy to see imo. There are a lot of recording engineers that seem to think no processing = more real sounding. I personally don't think we hear the same as an unmanipulated mic>pre>amp>speaker sounds. And I have actually tried doing weird loops like sticking a binaural head in the middle of a surround sound system. You will have a hard time getting the recording to actual sound like what you hear. Your brain has a lot of processing built in which parts of it seem to be altered or partially bypassed when listening to recordings. Your brain can act like a multiband compressor and noise reduction system without you noticing. Like cbdb was explaining mics will pic up a ton of ambiance/reflections which you will just ignore as your mind knows it's useless information or at best is used to aid in the focusing on/of the direct sound.
While you do want to mitigate electrical influences on the sound and in theory accomplish a real sounding end recording with the least amount of electronics possible understand that this is not the same thing as no processing. It's more about picking and choosing where in the signal chain you do this manipulation. For instance do you want to use a flat microphone and then have to use EQ later? Or would it be better to use a mic which is tailored for the FR of what you are trying to capture to avoid further electronic corruption later in the chain? They both are doing the same thing it's just you take a signal to noise ratio hit with one technique and not the other. Rambling about reproduction again sorry......
Anyway I guess my point is that I think tools which the mixer has at his disposal can be used to aid in realism. Dynamic range compression for instance seems to be needed somewhat to control focus and emulate the cocktail party effect. Without this it can be very hard to focus on the soloist while the accompaniment is distracting you with it's wide dynamics - this simply isn't the way we usually hear things. So yeah in the right hands I believe mixed recordings sound more authentic than field recordings. Of course there is a large learning curve and there is a tendency to make recordings surreal - nothing wrong with that either.
While you do want to mitigate electrical influences on the sound and in theory accomplish a real sounding end recording with the least amount of electronics possible understand that this is not the same thing as no processing. It's more about picking and choosing where in the signal chain you do this manipulation. For instance do you want to use a flat microphone and then have to use EQ later? Or would it be better to use a mic which is tailored for the FR of what you are trying to capture to avoid further electronic corruption later in the chain? They both are doing the same thing it's just you take a signal to noise ratio hit with one technique and not the other. Rambling about reproduction again sorry......
Anyway I guess my point is that I think tools which the mixer has at his disposal can be used to aid in realism. Dynamic range compression for instance seems to be needed somewhat to control focus and emulate the cocktail party effect. Without this it can be very hard to focus on the soloist while the accompaniment is distracting you with it's wide dynamics - this simply isn't the way we usually hear things. So yeah in the right hands I believe mixed recordings sound more authentic than field recordings. Of course there is a large learning curve and there is a tendency to make recordings surreal - nothing wrong with that either.
Last edited:
I do not every time, but from past recording that I do that were multi-miked, I can often hear the similarities in like recordings. They just lack the hall ambiance, the spacial cues, the transparency in their overall sound. They just sound "phasey", if that is a term
Not being a recording engineer, I am not sure what the correct term is that I am hearing, but it is not clear and have a mushy ( non-distinct overall presentation) sound to them. Again I have never had the experience of listening to a symphony at a close to the stage proximity. I always focus on each section to understand what a real instrument sounds like, so that I will have a reference. I also really prefer chamber music trios, probably because it is simple and I can focus more on the individual instruments and their tones. Just more of an intimate sound that I really enjoy listening to in a normal room. I get a better idea of scale and space too.
The digital EQ I use and think sounds best is not a linear phase variety. It behaves more like an analog EQ without the noise. The whole phase coherence thing doesn't seem to bother me outside of relative phase between channels and the way that works with phantom images. But yeah in a perfect world with infinite time for mic placement I would want the tonal shaping done at the mic and with mic placement. But I have wondered about some things in the regard. Say if you do plan on multimicing would it be good idea to filter out ultrasonic content and then excite a more singular ambience as to avoid extremely subtle cues?
Crossed cards seem the most popular but audience chatter is still a factor, just like sitting in the audience. It's standard practice to include a complete equipment list for each recording, check it out.
Shootz! I think it adds to it.
So you're the guy!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.