LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  November 2014

ARSCLIST November 2014

Subject:

Re: Recording technology

From:

Don Cox <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:05:57 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (118 lines)

On 18/11/2014, Tom Fine wrote:

> Hi David:
> 
> I happen to prefer the CD remaster of the Suppe Overtures, but I hear
> your point. What follow are one man's opinions, based on a lot of
> listening and bit of knowledge about how classical recording evolved
> over the decades.
> 
> There is a very strong temptation in a stereo classical recording to
> over-produce the sound. If you add in a bunch of mics you get a lot of
> "inner detail" that some reviewers are nuts about. The problem is,
> when there is a complex and/or loud part, the dissimilar time arrivals
> and the "bleed" causes the stereo image to collapse into something I
> call "wide mono." Many microphones became the preferred technique for
> all of the major labels by the early 70s.

I would call it a "Hockney jumble" -- referring to those pictures David
Hockney made by shooting lots of Polaroid photos and sticking them
together.

 
> Then there was a reaction against this, a "return to basics" mentality
> in the early digital era and in the short-lived direct-to-disk fad.
> Old techniques were emulated, but I don't think with full
> understanding. For instance, several parties tried to emulate the
> Mercury 3-spaced-omni technique, but used instrumentation-style
> microphones. I think they had a mistaken belief that a documentary
> approach would produce a "You Are There" feeling. It turned out not to
> be true, because key to the Mercury technique is a clear understanding
> of the presence peak of a non-flat microphone, and focusing that peak
> to make up for upper-mid and treble dissipation in a real-world
> acoustic space. This allows the mic to stand off far enough to capture
> the entire orchestra, in other words an accurate front-to-back depth
> and an accurate illusion of height based on the acoustic space (in the
> case of Mercury, you're going to hear more of these "ghost dimensions"
> in the better acoustic spaces like Rochester, Watford and Cass
> Technical School in Detroit. You will hear less of it in problematic
> spaces like Northrop and especially in Ford Auditorium in Detroit).
> Anyway, you can't use three razor-flat B&K instrumentation microphones
> in real-world acoustic spaces because, when they're stood off far
> enough to get an accurate balance of instruments (not be overwhelmed
> by the front row), the resulting sound is dull and boomy.
> 
> I'm not a believer in using a 2-mic crossed-matrix array to try and
> capture a symphony orchestra. I just don't believe that setup is
> capable of capturing the full spread and depth of the orchestra.
> However, the Decca technique of using a crossed pair in the center and
> outriggers on the sides does work and produced many good recordings.
> You get more hall ambience and a bit less presence that way, but when
> you're working in Kingsway Hall and the other great spaces where Decca
> mostly worked, that's just fine.
> 
> I've often wondered about applying the Mercury technique, including
> using the real-deal Schoeps M201 microphones (they need restoration,
> but they're still alive), with a modern high-resolution digital
> recording rig. Will people like it without the "thickening" of
> magnetic tape? Was that part of the secret with Mercury and RCA (both
> used the same kind of Ampex tape machines for most of the best-liked
> recordings, and RCA used somewhat similar but usually more
> microphones). Decca also used Ampex tape machines for their early
> stereo recordings. How much of the beloved sound is tape-related? I
> don't know the answer. I tend to think the love is more mic-technique
> related but a modern all-digital version might require some mastering
> EQ nip and tuck to thicken it out a tiny bit.

I believe there are now reasonably priced DSD converters on the market. 

It would be very interesting to hear a DSD recording fed by a good
microphone setup. (There may be some. I haven't heard any of the recent
recordings by companies such as Pentatone, and I don't know what mics
they use.)

> 
> Unfortunately, we discuss this in a time where there is very little
> budget to make proper classical recordings and we don't live in an age
> of giants as far as conductors and orchestras go. Part of what you
> might dislike about modern classical releases is that fact that most
> of them are really nothing more than forever-playable broadcasts,
> recordings of live performances (something totally different from a
> recording session). 

Different, and very often better. Most musicians perform better with an
audience. 

> In the best cases today, a major orchestra records
> a live performance and then the union rates allow for a short
> after-concert "patchup" session. Rarely have there been carefully
> heard playbacks, so the patchup decisions are made on the fly by an
> overworked producer or producer/engineer. Keep in mind that Mercury,
> RCA and Decca session books will clearly show that a major symphonic
> piece could have taken 2-3 full days to get on tape. Sessions went
> even longer in the 70s (perhaps not to better ends). That's unheard of
> today. Also today, the market is flooded with junk, b- and c-list
> orchestras recording on the cheap for the likes of Naxos. 

I don't think you can have bought many Naxos recordings. Their standards
are as high as those of any other company. 

And they have issued a great deal of interesting music which is not
available from any other company, while the former "major" companies
such as Universal repeat the same popular works over and over,
relying on cover photos of sexy young artists to increase sales.

> None of it
> appeals at all when compared to the great recordings from the "golden
> age." It's the Wal-Marting of classical music, if you will. Just like
> journalism, just like book authoring, music-making and recording are
> crafts. When there is not money and time to allow for craftsmanship,
> record companies and consumers (and what used to be called newspaper
> readers, and book buyers) get what they are willing to pay for.
> 

Regards
-- 
Don Cox
[log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager