Archive through November 27, 2004

My Rantz Gold Member Username: Myrantz Post Number: 1146 Registered: Aug-04	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 05:55 GMT Sem All the best - Excellent Jan, "Why does a drum set need ten microphones on it?" Well, there's the bass, the kettle, the snares, the high-hats, the toms . . . . :-) In those good old days of two/three mike live studio recordings, things went at a different pace and every second wasn't valued in terms of dollars only. And I think Kegger was spot on in his statement? One, two, three mikes, live, one take recording - it's still a mix - In fact you said so yourself almost in the same breath when responding with: "There were rudimentary mixing consoles when these recordings were made . . . " Everything to do with putting the sound on tape is a mix whichever way you look at it - I would think. The thing is IMHO, there are many fine recordings today, I have many in my cd and hi-res library - I have many average ones and a quite a few poor ones as well. Not everything should be based on what was done 40 years ago to create a reference point. What should be the reference point for the present is the best the present has to offer. And that can certainly be found on some of the hi-res formats. The past is the past and that doesn't mean certain things from that era weren't wonderful or unique and yes, there are many things we have lost to those good old days and moral values would be much higher on the list than music recordings. But yes, music is what we are about here and I for one do not doubt what you and others say about those fine old recordings for one minute. But the reality is, that very few care enough to see those old tradional methods eke an existence in todays recordings. Yes, money can be to blame - move 'em in and move 'em out of the studios as fast as possible. The most important sound is the sound your hear on DSOTM in song "Money": the cash registers. But, it's a difficult thing to make people take a backward step - even if you think the result was a forward one. All that aside, good things do still happen so why not take the best we can from the present and enjoy it for what it is: great music is still out there for us to bring into our homes in what ever format we like. I can't say how good your music sounds any more than I can about John's, Keggers, Ricks, Sem's, 2C's, Ghia's, Larry's, Don's, Arnold's or anyone elses and I would not presume to compare. All I know is how darn good my system can sound and whether it is up to your standard or anyone elses's does't bother me. It's a case of what we don't know does't hurt us. And it certainly does no one any harm to experience the wonders of the past, it can only create a better awareness of what was and what is, but lamenting too much on the good old days only makes one cynical about the days to come - and they may be bad enough as it is without believing there'll still be much to be enjoyed in our music. Oh, and I will say that I don't believe The Ferrari analogy was all that suitable for the old records - and old Citroen, a MG TC, or maybe a '58 Thunderbird, but that's tops. A Ferrari is very much more hi-rez I would think :-)
Don RX-1 Silver Member Username: Ojophile ON Post Number: 126 Registered: Jun-04	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 13:47 GMT To my neighbors south of the border: A very warm (!), happy Thanksgiving Day to all of you. If you had driven miles to visit family and friends, then have a safe drive back home. Cheers! Don
John A. Gold Member Username: John_a Post Number: 2499 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 14:27 GMT Great joke, Sem. Thanks, MR. If you are interested and cannot get hold of the mag (Dec HFN; a good one) I can try to scan that review. They speculate that the Denon 3910 is revised "for the American market" whereas the 2900 was for the home market (Japan). I do not understand this, any more than I do the argument about sizes of room in different countries. And let us not be rude about the US market. Happy thanksgiving, over there. The MC mixes will have the center carry John's voice only. Well that is clear case against centre channels, then.... Jan, I agree, as always. Well, almost... Even two channels is enough, for stereo. We have been through this before. We have the "who are you to say?" argument from Kegger, who makes it well, and it is a good point. But, if there is a reference point of an original performance, the there are ways of deciding which sorts of recording do better jobs at reproducing it, and most people will agree which they are, just from listening. If there is no attempt to reproduce and original, then Kegger is right, and anything is as good as anything else. That is my opinion. I just posted on this on That 'British Sound'?. I fear it may seem "pompous" again, but I can only try to say how I see it: there is no specially privileged viewpoint, and it is dangerous to think there is. There I am with Kegger. But there is a real world, and real sound, out there. If we share our experiences of it, then we can get to know it better. There are ways to portray it accurately, and ways to distort people's perceptions of it. There I am with Jan. That is my position on all this.
Larry R Silver Member Username: Larry_r Naples, FL Post Number: 179 Registered: Oct-04	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 14:30 GMT To Don "up nawth" to M Rantz "down Sout" and to John "who knows where?" - Mer and I wish you a happy, prosperous day. To our Stateside friends - Happy Thanksgiving. As I've posted several times, we've had LONG-staying house guests. Good friends, but after nine days, well, even friends become a bit tedious at times. But no big deal. . . They left yesterday - moving into a brand new house not too far from our rich Doc-friend. A closing delay kept them with us four days longer than they'd planned. Anyway. . . Just before they left they surprised Merri with a check for one of Mer's paintings they'd been admiring. They said - or rather their decorator, who had visited us one evening - had said that it would be "perfect" for their living room. So - an unexpected Happy Thanksgiving to us - the check, for $975, will just cover the cost of one of the tooth-crowns that Mer rather badly needs. One of life's imponderables - this giving and getting thang. . . (grin) I finally got a headache after reading all the banter re various methods of recording. I hope that this forum might maintain an attitude of learning and sharing, rather than acrimonious comment - but I know human nature precludes that. So - on this Thanksgiving Day - I just wish to ALL of you - my cyber-friends - please be happy with the fact that you can hear the sound, and see the video, and move around without major pain to select CDs from your storage. I agree with Jan that the "old" Mercury and RCA Living Stereo records were wonderful - but I also revel in the many-miced Mahler 2nd from San Francisco. And the many-miced Mahler 5th from Rattle and his German band. Rick - on this forum - wished for simplicity and elegance in life. Well, too many mics "may" spoil the sound-broth on occasion. Sorry to say that this process won't go away. I'll stick by my Thanks on this day - that I can hear music at all, and can determine what sounds "good" and what doesn't. I also thank friends who gave us "poor" folk money to fix Mer's teeth. I also thank friends - all of you - for just "being there" - and accepting my sometimes-ignorant rantings! As Mer and I always end our simple e-mails to good friends and relatives: "we send you luv and stuff" from Swampville. More anon. . .
Ghia Cabriolet Silver Member Username: Ghiacabriolet NC Post Number: 509 Registered: Apr-04	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 15:51 GMT Jan wrote: Most of these recordings were made with every musician in the room at the same time playing "the song"... That is a large part of what makes them special. The musicians were communicating with one another while they recorded. Kegger wrote: What makes you the athority on how something should be recorded? MR wrote: But the reality is, that very few care enough to see those old tradional methods eke an existence in todays recordings. Yes, money can be to blame - move 'em in and move 'em out of the studios as fast as possible. First of all, Happy Thanksgiving to fellow Americans and Happy Day to everyone else! Very interesting debate and insightful information about recording techniques. My takeaway from Jan's post is the real benefit of the "old days" is the communication between the musicians made the end results more special because you are hearing the collaboration and teamwork that took place. You are hearing the music as it was played (something you can't be sure of when there are multiple takes of multiple instruments on multiple tracks.) This is what makes the jazz classics from the 50's and 60's so enjoyable for me. There is something organic about the simplicity and pureness of what is being heard that gets lost in more complex recording techniques. Even in the "rock" world there is debate about "overproduction". In forums for Aimee Mann and Elliott Smith, individuals who aren't debating the sonics of a recording or equipment sometimes lament about overproduction because they believe some of the music's message is lost when the production techniques become more complex. Rumor has it that Aimee's new album is being recorded in the "traditional" method of having the band in the same room playing at the same time. It'll be interesting (at least to me) to see how that turns out - assuming that the rumor is accurate. Kegger, you know I luv ya! But....part of what bugs me about some of the 'debates' is a tendency to interpret some of the knowledge/opinion sharing as "authoritative" or "arrogant" or "condescending" to use some terms I've seen in the past. For instance, your statement (I've quoted above) in response to Jan's 11/24 10:40pm post is an example. All the questions you asked after that were good, healthy counterpoints. But, the intro to your post indicates you read something into Jan's post that I don't see. What in his post makes it sound like he thinks he's being "authoritative"? Maybe I'm not looking at some of these posts critically enough. But, I don't read into his posts some of the negativity that some on the forum seem to do. Kegger, sorry to use you as an example. It was a matter of convenience. But, from my perspective, a lot of this has been going on lately from multiple sources and I felt a need to say something about it. Maybe this type of bickering is an indication we are becoming "family". :-) Since you asked, I'm 9-2 and in first place in my division with a 3 game lead and only 2 games left before playoffs. MR, Maybe I'm a little naive about the economics of recording techniques but, it seems to me, it would be more cost effective to have the band in the recording studio in the same room playing the same song at the same time? Sure, you could mic each instrument and tweak the mix. But, it seems the more you mix and overdub tracks, etc that it would increase the amount of time to get a final product - thus increasing the cost. And, the mixing ultimately alters the original performance. You wrote: In those good old days of two/three mike live studio recordings, things went at a different pace and every second wasn't valued in terms of dollars only. The thing about that statement that strikes me is ...every second wasn't valued in terms of dollars only. That could be a generalization not only about the recording philosophy but society, too. For some, there is a feeling that "forward" "progress" while exciting is also somewhat shallow and soulless. Certainly not in every instance but frequent enough to be felt. Everything is a commodity these days and that, ultimately, lessens the value. Forward progress is not a bad thing. I enjoy the benefits gained from having a laptop with wireless connectivity to connect to the internet. I enjoy being able to use an iPod to take 400 songs from my music library on the road with me. I enjoy brushing my teeth with a Sonicare electric toothbrush. I enjoy having a nice, modern car to whisk me to my destinations. I enjoy reading Dwell magazine to learn about modern design and aesthetics. But, I also want to be open to learning about how we got to this point. And, in my experience, I've learned there's a lot of "old stuff" out there that is still relevant. Despite the benefits of some of the new fangled technology I use, none of it delivers the s e n s u o u s, soulful sensation of sitting down and listening to pure, simple music powered by the Mac. And, that's enough for me. Sem, Thanks for that bit of humor! Loved it. Since a few others have mentioned meeting certain famous musicians, I'll share one of my experiences. When I was 16, I met Stevie Ray Vaughn. My 15-year-old boyfriend, Trey, and I went to see Stevie Ray who was the opening act for another band...can't recall now who the "headliner" was. LOL. Anyway, after the show, we heard that SR was staying at a particular hotel so we headed to that hotel and went to the bar. After hanging around for a half hour, in walked the Man! We wanted to give him some space - but, we were also teenagers who were excited about meeting a rock star so we walked up to him and introduced ourselves. SR was extremely gracious and invited us to sit with him at the bar. He bought us some Cokes (sorry, Rick, I've been a Coke addict for a long time...) and had a beer for himself. Now, when thinking about that encounter, the thing that strikes me is how gracious and selfless he was. He didn't walk in with an entourage, he didn't have any bimbos as window dressing and he was a true gentleman to a couple of geeky, star struck, teenagers. Jan, Meet me at the car wash. ;-) Cheers, everybody!
Ghia Cabriolet Silver Member Username: Ghiacabriolet NC Post Number: 510 Registered: Apr-04	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 15:51 GMT Wow! that last post of mine was a long one. Sorry about that!
Ghia Cabriolet Silver Member Username: Ghiacabriolet NC Post Number: 511 Registered: Apr-04	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 16:03 GMT Don, John, Larry, Looks like y'all posted while I was composing and I didn't see your posts til now. Thanks for the sentiments all! John, I have to leave shortly to go to the family Thanksgiving gathering but will read your British sound post later. Don, I was in Toronto recently and enjoyed my stay there (as long as I was away from my roommate). I listened to Jazz 91 (?) quite a bit and loved it. I made a point of visiting the Future bakery at St. Lawrence market to get some of those delicious Chocolate Lace Florentine cookies, found a great bookstore (Nicholas Hoare) on Front St, made a return visit to that homey little place, Crepes-A-Go-Go near the ROM, and had a fun time being entertained by Njacko Backo's African Rhythms show at Harbourfront Centre. The weather wasn't even that bad - a little cold the first couple of days but then it warmed up to being merely chilly and the sun was out most days. Toronto is a great city! LR, It sounds like you are now only one tooth away from moving forward to the B&W's! Now, that is forward progress! :-)
Rick Barnes Silver Member Username: Rick_b New York USA Post Number: 652 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 16:31 GMT If I may, a little "Turkey Day" humor. I apologise in advance if I offend anyone in these "moral values" times. DO YOU KNOW WHY YOU NEVER GET _ _ _ _ ON THANKSGIVING? TOO MANY DAMN COATS ON THE BED................... Cheers to all!
Larry R Silver Member Username: Larry_r Naples, FL Post Number: 180 Registered: Oct-04	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 16:32 GMT Ghia: liked very much your first posting - and not too long in the least! In fact, as always, I learned even more from it. With thanx. . . Yep, one more tooth and we can start putting money aside for something - but not sure it will be the B & Ws - sigh - probably have to be a new computer, as my beloved "Lola" gets slower and more obstinate with each passing year. At age 6 and with Win98 and a mere 4 gigabyte hard drive, she's more than out-dated, I'm afraid. I agree on Toronto - Mer loves it, and she had several business trips up there about a dozen years ago. Sigh - Ghia, I really wish I could relate to most of the performers that you and others on this forum talk about at length. Alas, with many of the jazz folk excepted, I am flummoxed. Just never got into music other than classical and jazz - probably my loss, but then again there are those on this forum who have never really gotten "into" opera, for example. Much of this is how/where/when we were raised. But I try!!! (grin) Sem: simply forgot to say "thanks" for the wunnerful parrot joke! Had me chortling around the house, fer shore! As many of you prepare your turkey and trimmings, Mer and I will sit down to a simple fare of Caribbean grouper, couscous, cranberries, tiny haricot vert (bitty green beans) and key lime pie - with pink champagne. Nothing as fancy as y'all will have, but sufficient to calm our appetites and soothe our spirits. Happy Day All - again - we are all "blessed," one way or another. More anon. . .
Larry R Silver Member Username: Larry_r Naples, FL Post Number: 181 Registered: Oct-04	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 16:35 GMT Rick: Then, there are many of us who never get (not sure what to put here) on Thanksgiving, anyway! (grin)
Don RX-1 Silver Member Username: Ojophile ON Post Number: 127 Registered: Jun-04	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 16:45 GMT John, thanks for the info. Last night, I searched the 'net for other similar DVD-3910 reviews vis-a-vis the 2900, and the same conclusions are that of the 2900 being much better. BTW, John, I got my issue of Stereophile yesterday and it features the Rega P5 and P7. Didn't get a chance to read it yet, but I thought you might want to know. Larry, is it too late for you to take a pic of Mer's painting that was sold and post it here so we too can view and admire it? Or have your guests already packed it and taken it with them? In any case, congratulations to Mer for that sale. Keep warm. We had a snowstorm yesterday which hit the northern areas. We got freezing rain last night and this morning, the winds were numbing cold. Enjoy your fair weather there.
Ghia Cabriolet Silver Member Username: Ghiacabriolet NC Post Number: 512 Registered: Apr-04	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 16:46 GMT LR, Some of us (me, for instance) wish we had gotten more into classical and opera! I'm trying but it will be a long time before I have even a tenth of the level of knowledge you, 2C, John, etc have in those genres. You are right about the how/when/where we were raised part. I've always felt I was born at least 15 years too late and frequently feel like an outsider in today's society. Sounds like you and Merri will have a wonderful, healthy feast today! My mom goes for the "traditional" turkey, dressing, green beans, cranberry casserole, pumpkin pie, etc. It's a really great meal and we have lots of friends and family who join us. Enjoy your meal!
Ghia Cabriolet Silver Member Username: Ghiacabriolet NC Post Number: 513 Registered: Apr-04	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 16:54 GMT Rick, that was crass! lol Ok, it's 30 minutes past the time I was supposed to leave. I'm becoming Aunt Nelda (RIP) with my tardiness.
Ghia Cabriolet Silver Member Username: Ghiacabriolet NC Post Number: 514 Registered: Apr-04	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 16:56 GMT One more, before I go....Rick, that "corporate sponser" for a Cream tour wouldn't happen to be Pepsi, would it? ;-)
Larry R Silver Member Username: Larry_r Naples, FL Post Number: 182 Registered: Oct-04	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 17:06 GMT Don: Mer came in to "read over my shoulder," and said to tell you just one word: "Brrrrrrr!" But we hope for inner warmth for you and yours!!! Sorry, but the painting is gone - will try to snap a digital shot whenever we visit them. Ghia: Good response - and interesting that you should mention being "born too late." Mer often says the same thing - but then she's a very frightening person. Although she speaks neither French or German, I often awake at night to one of her horrible, "tortured" dreams - in which she speaks usually French, but sometimes German. How is that possible? Is this an example of a person who has multiple "past lives?" Don't ask me for an explanation - but it is scary!!! Further, Ghia, remember that the likes of John A. and myself are ten times older than you! (double grin) More anon. . .
KEGGER Gold Member Username: Kegger MICHIGAN Post Number: 1864 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 17:18 GMT GHIA: glad to hear yu! And this: "Kegger, you know I luv ya! But....part of what bugs me about some of the 'debates' is a tendency to interpret some of the knowledge/opinion sharing as "authoritative" or "arrogant" or "condescending" to use some terms I've seen in the past. For instance, your statement (I've quoted above) in response to Jan's 11/24 10:40pm post is an example. All the questions you asked after that were good, healthy counterpoints. But, the intro to your post indicates you read something into Jan's post that I don't see. What in his post makes it sound like he thinks he's being "authoritative"? Maybe I'm not looking at some of these posts critically enough. But, I don't read into his posts some of the negativity that some on the forum seem to do." That's why I put! ("There is no way to say this without it sounding bad but I don't see any other way to word it!") I knew it would sound bad but I didn't want my thinking to go askew again! As lately I've tried to convey my thoughts and don't seem to put them down in a manner that gets my point accross!
Larry R Silver Member Username: Larry_r Naples, FL Post Number: 184 Registered: Oct-04	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 17:20 GMT Two Cents, et al - see my posting on "Discoveries" re Turandot recordings.
Sem Silver Member Username: Sem New York USA Post Number: 348 Registered: Mar-04	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 17:41 GMT Rick, Not sure exactly what you mean by "---- on Thanksgiving" but personally I always get stuffed on Thanksgiving!! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oh come on!!!! I just mean I always eat too much!! -Sem-
Don RX-1 Silver Member Username: Ojophile ON Post Number: 128 Registered: Jun-04	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 17:44 GMT I believe that at least in the jazz and classical world, musicians still play together in a studio to record a song together at the same time. Usually, there will be a Plexiglas panel to separate each musician's acoustic sound from bleeding into the other's during the recording. If any overdubbing is done (at least, in jazz), it is to add percussion, vocal harmonies, or other instruments, say, an electric piano or to layer the string section if required. The reasons? (A) Usually, the musicians can play multiple instruments; (b) in the case of layering strings or voices, it's more practical to hire 3 or 4 violinists and ask them to play 2 or 3 parts from the arrangement and overdub themselves; and © hiring other musicians who happen to be signed with other labels will incur huge fees and the usual legal paper work. The joy of "playing together" is evident in some of the remastered jazz CD reissues that contain alternate takes, outtakes, false starts, and breakdowns. They give the listener a good idea as to how the musicians worked on particular songs. As for pop, the John Lennon Anthology box set which is a good example of musicians working and recording together. The "Abbey Road" album is a good case of overproduction. Ghia, Thanks for the wonderful post. The St. Lawrence market area on Front St. east is a favorite spot for location shooting by American film producers. If you ever have a chance to come here again during the spring and summer months, you'll find the area much more alive and buzzing with activity. And don't forget the pubs that serve great brew on tap! The Harbourfront Centre is also a terrific place to spend a summer day. And do try the ice cream that they sell there. Forget the diet, just indulge on it! That part about the 'bossy' roommate still gives me chuckles. I remember you mentioning a trip to Niagara Falls, and I was going to suggest that a "gentle push" never hurt anybody; people are known to survive the Falls; and the Canadian Niagara Falls emergency services are the best in the world. Oh, my God, what am I saying? Just kidding, just kidding. =============================================== Each has his/her own unique way of expressing ideas and opinions. To some, it takes only a few words to state their point. To others, it takes a few paragraphs and citations to explain their view. I don't have a problem with either style, and I try my best to read each post with a non-judgmental attitude. I don't think anyone is trying to impose his/her listening standards on anyone. But one factor that brings us to an impasse is our wide and diverse listening experiences and preferences. From DSOTM to La Boheme, from von Stade to Dylan, from Mahler to Steely Dan, etc., etc., we are actually teeming with musical richness! As we say here in Canada, let's celebrate our diversity. Our musical diversity. There is so much to learn from each other.
John A. Gold Member Username: John_a Post Number: 2501 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 18:42 GMT As we say here in Canada, let's celebrate our diversity. Our musical diversity. There is so much to learn from each other. Hear, hear!
Ghia Cabriolet Silver Member Username: Ghiacabriolet NC Post Number: 515 Registered: Apr-04	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 21:06 GMT Don wrote: That part about the 'bossy' roommate still gives me chuckles. I remember you mentioning a trip to Niagara Falls, and I was going to suggest that a "gentle push" never hurt anybody; LOL!!! As for the roomie....I told her point blank I preferred to spend the weekend in Toronto so she found someone from work to go to Niagara with her. We split the cost of a 2nd rental car and it was a small price to pay for a little freedom. Hopefully, my next trip to the Toronto area will be in Spring/Summer and, if so, I'll have to tap into a few vacation days to extend the trip. Both times I visited, I only had the one weekend to explore and have seen only a small part of what Toronto has to offer. But, enough of it to be tantalizing! As we say here in Canada, let's celebrate our diversity. Our musical diversity. There is so much to learn from each other. Excellent! Kegger, I hope I didn't hurt your feelings. You're one who gets your point across pretty well as far as I'm concerned. So, keep on keeping on! BTW, M Harrison has scored 33 pts for me today. Whoo-hoo! LR, C'mon, you guys are only 1.5 times older than me - but 10 times smarter! :-) Hopefully, my intelligence and wisdom will increase exponentially so I'll catch up with the old dogs in a couple of decades. So, are you saying that Merri channels French and Germans during her sleep? Would this be a multi-channel dream if she's speaking French, German and English? If so, do you think that is better than stereo?
Ghia Cabriolet Silver Member Username: Ghiacabriolet NC Post Number: 516 Registered: Apr-04	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 21:20 GMT Don, Ice cream is a weakness for me. I managed to go through most of the trip without yielding to temptation. Then, the next to the last night there, 4 of us (left the roomie at work) went to a place in Mississauga called Nando's. Wonderful, Portuguese chicken! Then, for desert, we got some chocolate ice cream that they scooped out in little "half balls" (if that makes sense). The ice cream was a premium quality and had some chocolate fudge in the middle. It sounds pretty decadent but it was not too rich but just sweet and chocolaty enough! Deliciously perfect!
Don RX-1 Silver Member Username: Ojophile ON Post Number: 129 Registered: Jun-04	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 21:35 GMT Ghia, I live in Mississauga, about 28 km. (or 17 miles) west of Toronto. Glad to hear you enjoyed the ice cream. There are other great decadent treats here in Toronto and the GTA (Greater Toronto Area). Cheers!
Don RX-1 Silver Member Username: Ojophile ON Post Number: 130 Registered: Jun-04	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 21:45 GMT C'mon, you guys are only 1.5 times older than me... Ghia, did you mean 5.1?
My Rantz Gold Member Username: Myrantz Post Number: 1147 Registered: Aug-04	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 22:35 GMT John A Thanks for the offer to scan that review, but there will be others and I may even get the mag itself. I appreciated the trouble you were prepared to go to. Larry, I lost a post last night as my isp went beserk again so I'll try to recall (not so easy these days) what I typed: First congrats to Merri, it's very gratifying to have someone appreciate your art well enough to pay for it. I only wish I had the artistic talent to paint my way to top dental (and even medical) health. In fact I have another appointment in the "House Of Pain" this coming week. Not a big job so it will most likely only cover the dentist's BMW 6 monthly service. A replacement top plate necessary very soon however will most likely get him into a new sprawling beach house! For anyone interested. I do understand where Kegger is coming from as I admit to sometimes feeling a bit like the student listening to the teacher go on about the way things should be done or on what is best for it to be done and how the old way is the only way. Those with great knowledge can be a little intimidating to we of lesser experience in such matters, but there is a thing called the experience of life that gives us a sense of how we feel and let's us makes decisions based on what our senses tell us and to have others tell us that what we are experiencing or appreciating is nonsense can certainly tend to get our backs up. I am not targeting any particular post or person here, butI think the reasons for the above ramble sometimes (not all) comes from the transition from mind to keyboard and what appears to seem 'arrogant' can really be someone 'trying' to be helpful or instructive. Other times some posts are difficult to describe as anything other but an exhibition of someone's ill-placed sense of superiority. The inclusion of stating that what is being conveyed is one's opinion can sometimes reduce the risk of misunderstanding. If stating something as fact - then some supporting evidence may also have the same result. We must also learn to appreciate that some people here go to much trouble to impart their wisdom and I for one thank all those that have - I have learnt much. I have also learnt to trust my ears enough to have faith in knowing I am getting (or getting closest to) the best possible musical exerience from the formats I choose and by playing them on the finest equipment I could afford. Is yours better? Probably! But no one has been in my house, listened to my recodings, played on my equipment to enable them to cast judgement or make comparisons about what I hear. It's about the music - and I have learnt enough here to know that, on the odd occassion, it can even been heard in some of those old classics - and by using that old medium they call stereo as well :-) And all of you are superior folk, if not a little crazed, in my book. Cheers gang.
J. Vigne Unregistered guest	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 23:00 GMT Arriving late as usual, Aunt Nelda and I have something in common. Odd, she doesn't look Italian. The DSL folks claim my password got scrambled since last night. I could not log on. All taken care of now, thank you very much! "So, are you saying that Merri channels French and Germans during her sleep? Would this be a multi-channel dream if she's speaking French, German and English? If so, do you think that is better than stereo?" Ghia - Quite good. Sounds as if you've had quite a bit bottled from your trip. Excellent posts all. Particularly the stuff where you agree with me. As to the car wash; your squeegee or mine? Sem - Give yourself a glass of Chivas for the joke. And while you're at it, I think I'll have one too. Don - It is the plexiglass panel that begins the slide down that ol' slippery slope. The concept of playing a song with everyone present may be too simple. Everyone playing together in isolation booths is nearly the same as the recordings done with different players on different continents in different months with different equipment. Pots and pans make the recording. Good for pasta. Bad for audio. I borrowed two Bill Evans CD's from a friend. I haven't had a chance to listen to them yet. "Moon Beams", The Bill Evans Trio on Riverside Records. I don't know that label at all. Recorded in 1962. The other is Bill Evans and Jim Hall, "Undercurrents" on Blue Note. Liner Notes indicate, "We have gone back to the original 3 track tapes and remixed them to digital, substantially improving the sound quality." ... Substantially improving upon the original. Better than the original. Three channels remixed. A feat made possible only through the wonders of digital. How can they afford to sell it for a mere $17.99? John - I don't remember what you wrote anymore. An old dog moment. Sorry. It must have been good though. Unless it was arrogant. Then it was bad. Which ever it was you should be ashamed/proud of yourself. Rick - You've never known anyone who thought the "fun" was to ---- on other people's coats? Kegger and Rantz - I'm sorry the distinction of making a three track "mix" instead of a 64 track MIX was lost on you. None the less ... You're right. I'm wrong. But it seems I like it. And so it must be great. How can you argue with that? If there is no reality we check against every now and again then whatever I like is GREAT!!! I will go have my Thanksgiving tamales now.
J. Vigne Unregistered guest	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 23:02 GMT Oh, yes. Cheers to all. I'll have another Chivas in our honor.
My Rantz Gold Member Username: Myrantz Post Number: 1148 Registered: Aug-04	Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 23:39 GMT "Kegger and Rantz - I'm sorry the distinction of making a three track "mix" instead of a 64 track MIX was lost on you." Not at all - one has 61 less! That's a great example of arrogance Jan. It was only an example wasn't it? I mean, you weren't really being arrogant were you? Oh sorry - excuse me Mr Vigne, you weren't really being arrogant were you? Sir?
Don RX-1 Silver Member Username: Ojophile ON Post Number: 131 Registered: Jun-04	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 00:04 GMT Jan, The Bill Evans "Moonbeams" album was made after the accidental death of bassist Scott La Faro in 1961. The album contains all ballads and showcases Evans at his most lyrical style. Several tunes were recorded during that session; the swinging ones made it to the next album How My Heart Sings. I strongly recommend filling up on the Chivas before you sit down to listen to Moonbeams. You'll need it. Riverside was co-founded by Evans' long-time producer, Orrin Keepnews, as an offshoot of Fantasy Records. The first tune in the Moonbeams album, RE: Person I Knew is an anagram of Orrin's name. It wasn't written for La Faro, contrary to what some Evans fans believe. "Undercurrent" is a duet with guitarist Jim Hall. Enjoy!
Larry R Silver Member Username: Larry_r Naples, FL Post Number: 185 Registered: Oct-04	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 01:39 GMT Don - hey, guy - give us old pharts a break! It's hard enough being green, OK? (grin) My Rantz - sigh - thanks for the congrats. Mer is happier now, though still in a dither, as usual for artists. Tell your children - and repeat after me: "never marry an artist. Never marry an artist. Never marry an artist. Never. . ." Jan - yeah, I'm sure that there's some cosmic strangeness going on here - but after 23 years of it, well, unless I see the saucers out in the yard, I just roll over. . . And to all with those huge spaces in your postings . . . Cut the crap, guyz!
J. Vigne Unregistered guest	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 02:25 GMT I didn't intend to be arrogant. Maybe a bit condescending, but not arrogant. But we'll have it your way. Sorry you took it that way. I was trying to agree that what someone likes is all that matters. You obviously read something different. Just as when you read that I was calling you a fool. I don't remember ever coming close to that. But, if that is your interpretation ... Rantz, why don't you write the one post that sums this subject up? Write whatever you like, because "like" seems to be what it is about. I thought that's what I said. I agreed that if I like it it's great. But that seems not to suit you. So go ahead and tell us what the real story is from your perspective. Other than old is old. New is new. One mix is the same as all the rest. Reality is unimportant. Take one post to tell us exactly how and what we should be listening to. I've become lost. Once again, I'll be waiting over there. I'm feeling old.
My Rantz Gold Member Username: Myrantz Post Number: 1149 Registered: Aug-04	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 04:16 GMT First off Jan, I did not infer YOU called me or anyone a fool. It was someone else who awarded that tag upon those who dare to utilise or trust the Sony format and as you can well understand, I need not to go back there now. I think the point Kegger was trying to make is that no one should be telling anyone else exactly how and what they should be listening to. And I agree with him - totally. I was trying very hard in that post not to point fingers but since you obviously decided the cap fits you then let me iterate that it is not so much as what is stated, it is how it is stated. Sometimes, and I'll agree I and others aren't without guilt in pressing a point or two rather passionately, you do sometimes come across as Chief Ranger of Audio. Without my having to spend hours sorting through the archives let me give a 'small' example: "I know it's not the music you listen to but these recordings are something everyone should hear for a reference point in audio." Kegger suggests why - because you say so? The thing is, no matter what you and others think about those recordings, your say-so does not make them the be all and end all of audio reproduction. That is your opinion as well as it may be those of countless others who agree with you. And many may not. Many may prefer some other recording method/record as a reference point in audio. Had you said: "for me these recordings are a reference point in audio," there would be nothing to take umbrage over. So: "Take one post to tell us exactly how and what we should be listening to" I think I just explained why I cannot do this - I hope so. One last time - I agree with much of what you share with us. Some I don't. But, as I do others, I appreciate your being here, your knowledge, your advice and, quite often, your humour. Same with John A - as much as I think he is "possessed" I still consider him my friend. But I will say what I think when I feel the need arises and defend those of us who may feel a little beat upon occassionally. I don't feel old - I am. Maybe too much so for time spent here. I shall have to see. So who bears the tactless gene? Texans or Italians :-)
KEGGER Gold Member Username: Kegger MICHIGAN Post Number: 1865 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 04:16 GMT Jan sorry to call you out! But what I was trying to point out was that it seemed you were saying that those old recordings are the way to do it! "point of reference" And that the new way "multiple mics/mixing channels/perfomers at different times" Was not a proper way to record. And by saying that. "YOU KNOW" what the proper way to record is! When I'm suggesting that you like it recorded that way so "for you" that is the way to go.That means your "preference" not neccasarily the right way to do it and others are wrong. I have no problem with you explaining to me or anyone else how they did it back then and that "to you" it sounds wonderful. AND WHY IT "MAY" BE A BETTER WAY TO DO IT. But the way it comes accross is "this IS the right way to do it" I think all rantz and myself are saying is that it's hard to determine when "you" write weather you mean oppinion or fact! And when you write most of the time it looks like you are saying fact. And if that's the case then that is what we take exception to. When you state something as fact that means there is no other so it must be this. That is what I object to as I believe in technology "can" make a positive difference. _____________________________________ And what is this: "Kegger and Rantz - I'm sorry the distinction of making a three track "mix" instead of a 64 track MIX was lost on you. None the less ... You're right. I'm wrong. But it seems I like it. And so it must be great. How can you argue with that? If there is no reality we check against every now and again then whatever I like is GREAT!!! Not sure what you are trying to say there. __________________________________________ Jan I believe you have a lot of knowladge. And I want to learn. But "like john says with other things" I'm not going to take everything you say blindly as "the way it is". I'm a thinking individual who believes in ones self and think I know a thing or too about audio. So yes like rantz says sometimes when you talk it looks like you are talking down to the rest of us as we don't know anything and you need to teach us. I'm not neccasarily saying you are doing it on purpose but if you used a "in my opiinion" or "i believe" or "i think" something along those lines. Just something that lets us know this is your thinking and doesn't comes accross as "the all knowing" I've enjoyed talking to you on the phone and have learned some things from you and appreciate we can ask questions and throw thoughts out to ponder. I don't want to pi$$ anyone off but weather you realize it or not your posts do come accross as arragont at times. I don't really think you mean it but without someway of telling how you mean to say something it can get frustrating at times. I know you want to convey your thoughts as having knowlage behind them and not just random blabber, so you want to sound confident in your postings as being solid advice. WE ALL KNOW YOU ARE VERY EDUCATED IN THE WAYS OF AUDIO! IF NOT WE WOULD NOT ASK YOUR ADVICE! Just sometimes you make some of us feel like kindergardners! And when that happens enough we lash out and challenge!
KEGGER Gold Member Username: Kegger MICHIGAN Post Number: 1866 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 04:17 GMT WOW RANTZ NICE TIMING!
My Rantz Gold Member Username: Myrantz Post Number: 1150 Registered: Aug-04	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 04:29 GMT Kegger, A charming coincidence no doubt. This seems like a full on assault - I hope all paths now lead to peace and understanding - and goodwill to mankind!
KEGGER Gold Member Username: Kegger MICHIGAN Post Number: 1867 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 04:39 GMT well I hope some don't think we are ganging up on jan or john or anyone else for that matter. but I just felt the need to get my point accross before it gets much further. Jan or anyone else if I have something that I seem to do on a regular basis that upsets you please let me know "politely please" so I may work on it. And Jan again I don't mean to be a d!ck and hope we all can still have meaningful debates and questions even get under one anothers skin now and then. Don't want anything I have to say to stop anyone from speaking there mind.
John A. Gold Member Username: John_a Post Number: 2507 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 13:42 GMT All, This thread is so full of interesting things I could spend all my time here, and I have less and less. So I have dropped a couple of bricks by not replying to questions or replies. Please accept my apologies. Especially you, MR. One direct question was from Kegger :"JOHN: What is the point to your last post? Do you believe sacd/dvd-a are no better then what weve had? I think they have the potential to be better, and in some cases they certainly are. But for many recordings there is not much they can do that stereo CD/LP cannot do just as well. This all assumes that what we want is the sound of an original performance, of course. If we don't, I am pretty well lost, and do not really know what to say. Even with "getting the original sound" I am not entirely sure what I think I know any more. The Mercury stereo CDs are a good reference, as Jan said. It is a shock to discover what high-quality recordings they are, even by the best standards of today. And even on CD re-issues! My post of Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 10:29 am on the last archived Old Dogs was trying to tell my own history and outlook, again, just to try to let people know what was in my head, but it clearly came out all wrong, and people took offence. I am not trying to tell anyone what to think; just offering opinions, and trying myself to see whether these are even worth reading or writing. I am pretty well an agnostic on the whole thing, by now. There are some recordings where mutichannel can clearly get closer to the composer's and performer's intentions than stereo. That is the only solid point I can make to Jan. As regards "Hi-res" digital vs. CD I have had my ears unplugged by Mercury and by using my 5.1 inputs, so it is a close call, now. On that score, I would put the Naxos 5.1 DVD-A of Leningrad Symphony by the Moscow Symph Orch a whisker ahead of the Dorian Stereo CD by the Dallas Symph Orch, which I know Jan likes, and which I agree is a good example of a an excellent modern recording (this means "1992" in this case - I really don't think stereo or CD has improved much, or at all, subsequently). But comparing the two is much as you say, Kegger, it is what floats your boat. If someone finds the 5.1 a distraction from the music, that is a disaster. I think the Naxos 5.1 DVD-A has more resolution and detail, but it is difficult to know when the whole ambience of the two recordings is so different, anyway. I have sent Jan a copy of that DVD-A, for comparison. Hope it's OK to say that, Jan. The Dorian CD and Naxos DVD-A are a clear case in point, from the "original sound" perspective, in my opinion. It is difficult to some down on one side. All I can say is it is brilliant music, whichever way you get it. Two quick things, arising from Don. 1. Naxos have a Charpentier Te Deum DVD-A played by a great Canadian "Early Music" band and recorded in a church in Toronto. I think it is another good example of how multichannel can "take you there" in a way that even the best stereo cannot quite achieve. Now, if Don will just pop down to that church, listen to the acoustic, and let us know.... I could write a load on that recording. It also illustrates the value of "period instruments" imho (Larry!). They should have bound and gagged the kettle drum player, but at least you can hear the resonance of the church from his manic outbursts; perhaps that is why they allowed him to go berserk and drown out the orchestra (only in first part, the Eurovision, theme, mercifully). BTW they have a Vivaldi Gloria in the pipeline. I hope it is done in the same place, with the same band, and the same sound engineers. That is a "classical pop". I have lost count of the number of TV advertisements you can hear it in. Second only to Handel's "Zadok the Priest" (the ad guys do not get it, though; it is a bit like selling bottles of Niagra Falls and expecting them to contain the roar, and a rainbow). That also is another topic. 2. I agree so much with Jan about plexiglass. It has one use in sound recording; to keep the recording engineers away from the performers, listening on "monitor" loudspeakers, in another room, but not interfering. The moment you put musicians in plexiglass booths you have lost sight of the music - lost the plot - in my opinion. I saw a video of Bernstein conducting his last recorded "West Side Story". Every musician was wearing headphones, and seemed to have his/her own mike. What terminal self-delusion. It was Deutsche Grammophon. Need I say more? Yours respectfully, but a little hurt at Jan being nominated as "most arrogant" etc. I thought I was streets ahead. Blast you, Vigne, egregious toady! Making Uriah Heape (the Dickens character, not the band) seem like Cassius Clay.
Don RX-1 Silver Member Username: Ojophile ON Post Number: 133 Registered: Jun-04	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 14:04 GMT Don - hey, guy - give us old pharts a break! It's hard enough being green, OK? (grin) Larry, There's more of that kind of posting coming from me. (this space intentionally left blank) Just kidding, Old Phart, just kidding. I'm sorry, but sometimes I get carried away especially if the topic or question is right down my alley. OK, I will shut up and just read other people's posts. Keep warm, my friend.
Larry R Silver Member Username: Larry_r Naples, FL Post Number: 186 Registered: Oct-04	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 14:15 GMT G-day from Swampville - John A. - good "dig" at me re the "instruments that are only in tune once a month" - so-called "period" instruments. Yes, I DO have a bit of distaste in my mouth regarding them - have heard perhaps too many of them "in person" and have not appreciated the sound. For me, anyway, the "modern" instruments take the stage in much better manner. For me, let me repeat. However, there ARE recordings with period instruments that I rather enjoy. (must be the right time of the month?) Soooo - I'll give you some points, John, and say that my objection to the PIs is a case-by-case basis. And yes, John, "Deutsche Grammophon" is all you need say about less-than-good sound. Early recordings, anyway - those before, say 1989. I'm giving to the library all of my early DG CDs - as I replace them with "better" performances. To all: I have done "stories" on various types of recording sessions in my dayz as a so-called "journalist," and I must admit that these "put the musicians in boxes" sessions leave a questionable taste in my mouth. The end result is often far less than "interactive" and can ruin whatever spontaneity existed before the earphones went on and the Big Mixer in the control room took over. But to argue against myself a bit - in many cases, this type of recording produces quite good sound - DEPENDING on the type of music. The "boxes" sessions I attended and filmed were either pop or jazz music - never classical. Perhaps those music-types do better in such surroundings? I think so. I agree with Jan that the Mercury and RCA Living Stereo records set some very high standards, and for me they are - to some extent - benchmarks. But this new SACD format comes so close so much of the time that I embrace it as an equal - in my listening room, at least. Still enjoying the Yamaha - thoroughly! Perhaps I should be glad that I did not get one of the new Denons, after all? I read in several places that the "old" 2900s were better than the new "*10" series. How sad! Jan and Rick: still struggling with those infernal cones. Today the silicone rubber feet come off again, and on go the cones. I know that y'all have warned against rubber feet creating sympathetic vibrations, and so "wear" them with caution. Will try - again - to see if I hear what Rick hears, I believe "clarity" was your word, correct, Rick? Heck, I'm just trying to get (here we go again with the word) "better" sound from my admittedly-lacking system. Sigh. If at first I don't succeed, well. . . More anon - and happy After T-Day shopping to all!
Larry R Silver Member Username: Larry_r Naples, FL Post Number: 187 Registered: Oct-04	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 14:20 GMT And good morning to you, too, Don! Just thought you'd like to know that Mer and I nearly FROZE last night - extra blanket on the bed and all that. Temp got down - WAY down - to 56 degrees F. Now,THAT, is COLD! (grin) And you can post in any format you like - just gets tiresome scrolling down, down, down. But I admit - it's effective! You earlier mention some Paul Desmond recordings with piano accompanyment - could you list your favorites please? Desmond is SUCH an idol of mine, and I try to collect as much as I can in CD format, and hope for some reissues in SACD format soonish. Thanx. . .
Larry R Silver Member Username: Larry_r Naples, FL Post Number: 188 Registered: Oct-04	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 14:24 GMT My Rantz: what is this "goodwill to mankind" stuff, anyway. What - yah tink it's a Holiday Season or sumpin? (grin)
John A. Gold Member Username: John_a Post Number: 2508 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 16:15 GMT One area where we have to agree to disagree, Larry is your remark More natural, wider dynamics (often much TOO wide!). For me there is no such thing as "too wide", unless they go as far as stretching the original. I have never heard an example of that. Most radio stations compress classical to death, and not many audio systems or recordings give it you like it is. I just finished the Dorian Shostakovich Leningrad Symphony. Whether of not that stuff is your sort of stuff, it makes me want to raise a glass to MR and Rick, who from time to time remind us of how lucky we are etc. Think of the horror and the darkest of times that came out of, with good young men slaughtering each other like livestock, in defence of everything they knew, and over, ultimately, the issue of which end of the egg you break for breakfast, and the graphic ("TOO graphic"...Larry?) portrayal of it all in the first movement ("Bolero with tanks"). Then see where the composer takes it. If that does not make you glad to be alive today, I cannot think what will. How could he sustain that vision at that time? And here's a neat thing: you can have the Dallas Symphony doing it on stereo CD, or the Russian Philharmonic in DVD-A/SACD 5.1. In your home. And they are both fantastic. You can choose; it is the same composition, completed by a composer fleeing from annihilation, literally for his life, and within living memory. Isn't that something?
John A. Gold Member Username: John_a Post Number: 2509 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 16:27 GMT Jan, Apparently you missed the class on dither and "the least significant bit". Yes,' fraid so. Is there a repeat? AC-3???? Dolby Digital 5.1 is encoded digitally in an audio format for DVD-Video which is called "AC-3". As opposed to "DTS", "PCM", "'XYZ'". I cannot think of what else it might refer to. I try to write "AC-3", when I remember, because "Dolby Digital" seems to mean almost anything; I have seen "Dolby Digital Mono", on DVDs, plus "Dolby Digital" on VHS tapes.
J. Vigne Unregistered guest	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 17:40 GMT Larry - I must first apologize to you. I have deeply wronged you and inflicted, I fear, irrepairable harm. Will your scrolling finger ever forgive me? Desmond has been a hero of mine for years. If there is a place to begin looking for an example of arrogant I always felt it was Brubeck. Not the most, but a good example. Desmond on the other hand was the nerdy accountant type who kept track of what everyone should be playing. The description of him that I remeber most is something along the lines of, "lips so cool you could hear the frost on his clarinet". The only CD I have of his is the one I consider the top of his game. "The Paul Desmond Quartet, Live" was recorded in 1975 in Toronto. All the musicians playing together with simple microphone techniques. Just what I think is needed for a great recording. A performance of "Take Five" which makes anything on a Brubeck album inconsequential. It is a disc which anyone who listens to jazz should get. But, if you don't listen to jazz ... A little condescending there. The LP does sound better ... that is stated as a fact. But I await the hoped for release on SACD since I think the sound of applause from behind me makes a recording sound better. OK, that was full blown arrogance. Ghia - I was digging through some drawers of CD's and came across the Mercury recording of "Pictures at an Exhibition". It is on regular CD. If you should buy the SACD version I would be happy to send you a copy of this disc for comparison purposes. I would do it, but that doesn't seem appropriate right now. In going through the liner notes to "Undercurent", I came across some information that I think is pertinent to the discussion more or less at hand. "Perhaps the most notable difference between the ways musicians and 'fans' listen to jazz lies in the attention musicians pay to interaction. Jazzmen hear not only a soloist but an entire group playing together: The subtle intertwining of lines, tempos, and motifs that is the essence of swing and the difference between lackluster and brilliant performances. That is why musicians go into raptures over, say, the playing of bassist Sam Jones or pianist Hugh Lawson - raptures 'fans' reserve for recognized 'stars' ... on 'Undercurrent, Evans and Hall constantly feed each other ideas, suggesting, responding to, and echoing each other's thoughts ...'Undercurrents' is a tribute to elegance and sensitivity, to jazz's subtler values, and to the genius of great musicians deeply attuned to each other." I don't think I'm being arrogant to say that is what makes music great and what is often lost from many recordings, LP or CD. Even when The Beatles recorded their last few albums with not one of them in the studio with another you could feel the frustration and anger that was present on the tracks. "Undercurents" is the disc recorded on three track masters. That is what Plexiglass and headphones start to destroy. I've been accused of arrogance before. Actually nothing new to me. That is quite often how my duscussions of music ended when I worked with peole who listened, and argued about music. One of us would get worked up and then a customer would come in and the response was something along the lines of, "Jane, you ignorant sl*t!!!" And one of us would take care of the customer and then return to argue once again. I do not, however, remember being accused of such a crime for SUGGESTING someone SHOULD listen to a recording. Paraphrasing the line, "if you don't remember history, you are doomed to repeat it". Technology seems to make a mockery of this idea. You can ignore what has come before. No one has to have ridden in a stagecoach or even seen a '67 split window Corvette to be able to drive a car. But I find it much more interesting when I have. And that is how I feel about electronics and music. It is like Kegger discovering paper in oil capacitors and the lovely, captivating sound they bring as compared to poly caps. They can have a midrange that is, to use the overworked phrase, like liquid gold. It is listening to 78's and cylinders that puts a perspective on today's recordings and equipment for me. I don't insist everyone must. But I think everyone SHOULD. The way I present my case in this forum is how I am used to discussing music and audio with the people I used to work with. That is why I enjoy this forum and this group of people. But a salesperson doesn't make their case by saying, "on the other hand" or "of course that's just my opinion". A salesperson learns to have an opinion and many start out that way and that's why they go into sales in the first place. What I try to present on this forum is an opinion based on my experience. Just as I assume everyone else will do. And I know mine is not the experience anyone else has had. (There's another thread on this forum that explores just what we experience. It could get interesting or just long winded. We'll have to wait and see.) I'm not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking exclusively. You are all free to think anything you want, even about me personally. If I state a fact, I usually felt it was easy to discern what that is and when that occurs. If someone feels I'm talking over their heads you can call me on it. I made the offer to send anyone, at no cost to you, a copy of what I thought were recordings that displayed attributes I find lacking in most contemporary recordings. As they say, "seminal" recordings that should put in prespective what we are listening to today. That Rantz suggests that many people agree with me on this, and many on this thread seem to agree, I thought would interest some of you who have not heard these recordings to take a chance on music you don't normally listen to. That is how I developed my record collection. A co-worker or client, or maybe an article I read, suggested something was interesting. I went out and tried it. Sometimes I liked it and sometimes I didn't. I've got dozens of records I'll never listen to again ... probably. Maybe someday I'll get curious, or something will come along to pique my interest in why I bought it in the first place. I don't know. I don't get rid of things often, to answer one of John's questions a while back. But trying things is also the way I learned to cook. It hasn't killed me yet. So if you feel I being arrogant about this and you don't care for it you can call me whatever you like. As I said it won't be the first time. I'll try to do better in the future. But if you don't want to try something because you normally don't listen to it ... I see only one person to blame. John!
Ghia Cabriolet Silver Member Username: Ghiacabriolet NC Post Number: 518 Registered: Apr-04	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 19:02 GMT Thanks, Jan. I'll take you up on the offer of "Pictures of an Exhibition" and any other "seminal" recordings you'd like to share. Will send email with address. Thanks, again! Don, it's a small world, eh? The roomie and I stayed in Mississauga at a townhouse near Eglinton and Plantation.
Rick Barnes Silver Member Username: Rick_b New York USA Post Number: 653 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 19:18 GMT Mr. Vigne, I wish you would continue as you always have. Arrogant? At times maybe a tad, but then some confuse confidence with arrogance. Trust me, I know arrogant. (LOL!) Passionate? Most definitely. But then most frustrated actor/artists are. I sense that more than anything in you posts. So I would't worry about trying harder, or doing better in the future. We "OD's" learned who you are a while ago, and loved you anyway.......................................................................... .................................................I know, it's hard being a little flawed. But isn't that what makes us all human?
John A. Gold Member Username: John_a Post Number: 2510 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 19:38 GMT I think that's all correct, Jan. If you have opinions, then it is actually generous to put some effort into stating them clearly, and arrogant to assume that there is no point in communicating with people who do not already know what you mean to say. That last remark is directed at a lot of music critics and pundits. I always want to ask them how THEY would play it, or sing it. In classical, "The Gramophone" is a case in point, mostly. There was a UK Disc Jockey called "John Peel" who had a huge following of people who liked to think, or hoped, they were as cool as he was. Ii remember him from way back, on Radio Caroline. He died, recently, and I am not going to argue with the fullsome obituaries, or show disrespect. He reached a lot of people, I give him credit for that. But never me. Lately he did a sort of Saturday morning radio "holding court" in which he interviewed people, and asked them how it felt to have a child die of cancer, or similar. When they replied, often bereaved the previous week, he'd always reply with a sort of sneering inflexion, slightly bored, but willing to tolerate the git who had wasted his time responding to his question - "Yeah, but, by the way, what do you think of..." and then he would be off, advertising more of his preferences in rock music. There could be millions of UK people who will object to this remark, but I always thought his off-handedness was arrogance cubed. I thought he was exactly the sort of music critic who might have asked ask "By the way, Mrs Lincoln, apart from that little incident involving your late husband and John Wilkes Booth - how did you enjoy the opera?". Re Pictures at an Exhibition I recently bought the Kurt Mazur/Leipzig Gewandhaus recording on TDK DVD-V. It is much better in DTS, with the TV turned off. But if you don't want to try something because you normally don't listen to it ... I see only one person to blame. John! Does this mean the Vivid test disc has reached its treator?
John A. Gold Member Username: John_a Post Number: 2511 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 19:43 GMT BTW I agree totally about communcation between performers. That does not apply only to jazz. All music is like that. The smaller the band, the better. Watch a String Qt at work. There is no boss. There never could be, if it is any good.
Larry R Silver Member Username: Larry_r Naples, FL Post Number: 189 Registered: Oct-04	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 20:16 GMT John A. - perhaps, sir, if you listen to SACDs of either the Mahler 2nd or 5th you would understand what I'm talking, er, writing about. In the (for lack of better word) "soft" passages, you can barely hear any sound at all - then, a couple of measures later - WHAMMO! Fortissimo! I've tried very, very hard to set the volume control so that both ends of the loudness range can be left alone - nope - just won't work for me. Have to turn up and down on occasion, which I am not very happy about doing. So - for me, in my room, with my gear - the sound levels are simply too far apart for comfort. If you listen to the SACD you may understand my dilemma here. Jan V. - I salute you, sir, with my scrolling finger. Long may you "gap." I have many of the Paul Desmond albums, but am now salivating over the possibility that both RCA and a couple of other labels will be bringing out re-masters of many of his performances. The song, "Take Five", BTW, was written by Desmond - and upon his death back in 1977, the will stated that all royalties from that song were to go to the Red Cross. A lot of people got pissed about that! TF has made a huge amount of money over the years. I believe Desmond made a couple of recordings up in Toronto - very good ones. But the one I'm trying to track down seems to be almost impossible to find - except by parties who are trying to sell it Online for an average $65 USD. It's called Paul Desmond and the Modern Jazz Quartet - recorded back in 1971. If any of you know where I can get a clean copy for sorta retail price, please post. Oh, and BTW, if Desmond had "frost on his clarinet" it must have happened at a very early age. He gave up the clarinet for the alto saxophone long before he became a public figure. Now - anybody have an opinion on all of the "reissues" that I find of Desmond's recordings? There are all sorts of labels, and I'm afraid to buy them for fear that the quality won't be as good as the original. Some of the reissues claim 20 or 24-bit mastering - which should be "better" than the original analog recordings - but I still have my questions. Thanks for any and all opinions/comments/critiques. More anon. . .
J. Vigne Unregistered guest	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 22:14 GMT Larry - "I salute you, sir, with my scrolling finger." Eh, which finger is that, Larry. I'm a little nervous about those kind of posts right now. Clarinet - and I read that twice and let it go. Thanks for the correction. Old dog moment again. Now where did I put the car to my keys? Rick - "Trust me, I know arrogant" I bet you do, sir. Special Forces have never been known for their reticence. A quiet, shy Jesse Ventura?
KEGGER Gold Member Username: Kegger MICHIGAN Post Number: 1869 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 22:28 GMT Hear is what I think could be differences in recording technique's that "may" lend themselves to help undestand why some may prefer different ways of doing things versus another. I'll just throw 2 examples out there of what I think "may" get my point started. ___________________________________________________________________ It sounds to me what jan is saying "to a certain degree" "If I follow him right" Is that if you put a band in a room "recording studio" all at once playing the piece and you use say 2 microphones up front L and R stereo to record the event. That may be the best way to capture the event to play it back the way it was meant to so that you can feel and hear the comunication and to get imaging correct. (actually that sounds about right to me as to what stereo does best) Now that to me may even be the best way to get the imaging correct. And that if imaging is one of your main concerns, any other way's to do it will probably screw it up. And this could by why some dislike multiple mic's and musicians being recorded at different times. Maybe even the reason for not enjoying surround. If your so use to a certain piece sounding a certain way and you enjoy that, but now someone jumbles it all up so that your imaging is totaly ruined from what your use to you may have a very good chance of not enjoying what your hearing. IF I'VE GOT THAT RIGHT JAN I AGREE WITH YOU! ______________________________________________________________________ Now on the other hand if your after pure sonic performance of the instruments and the singers and imaging is not one of your main concerns. "recreate the venue or the event" Then recording each individual instruement seperatly on a seperate track with multiple microphones capturing every little sound and harmonic the singer or player has to offer. And doing each one until they are satisfied it's the best they can do. In my oppinion would give us an excelent recording of what each individual instrument and singer can give us. now you put all those pieces together to where you can really hear each individual instruement and voice so clear without being concerned that the imaging or something else is not what your use to hearing, for some that would be the best for them. _________________________________________________________________________ Now for me I love to hear all the little things in the instruements that I can pick out. Also if i'm listening to multichannel "I" believe having just the singers voice in the center sounds so much better and clearer. So I like the seperation of instruements so I can hear them better and not as concerned with imaging. One thing that "I believe" really needs to happen for multichannel to work to it's best and have that excelent center channel reproduced is a top notch speaker in the center. something that can take everything that is demanded from it or it's going to degrade what was created. ____________________________________________________________________________ That is what I believe may seperate some of us on how we like things recorded because of what we view as more important to our listening enjoyment. Meaning that one recording technique may lend it's hand better to what you percieve as the more important aspect of the music reproduction for you!
Rick Barnes Silver Member Username: Rick_b New York USA Post Number: 654 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 22:45 GMT Jan, Trust me, I am laughing as I type this. The only problem I have with the Ventura/Stallone portrayals of Special Forces types is that they would have never made the cut. Not intelligent enough! It's not all bravado and chest thumping. They want guys who can think on the move. Yes you can say we had a quiet, reserved confidence. (LOL!)
J. Vigne Unregistered guest	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 23:54 GMT Rick _ I thought Ventura was a Navy Seal. No?
Don RX-1 Silver Member Username: Ojophile ON Post Number: 134 Registered: Jun-04	Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 23:57 GMT Larry, re: Paul Desmond albums with piano Skylark - Bob James plays piano and/or electric piano, but the prominent rhythm instrument here is the guitar played by Gabor Szabo and Gene Bertoncini, both excellent players with very different styles. Concierto, Jim Hall - This is guitarist Jim Hall's album with Paul Desmond and Chet Baker as guests. Roland Hanna is on piano. I have the early CD reissue. Larry, in my opinion, the guitar suits Paul Desmond's unique, sweet tone better than the piano does (with due respect to Hanna, James, and Brubeck). Another great guitarist, Toronto's finest, is Ed Bickert who plays on Desmond's Pure Desmond album. The CD's I have are the first reissues so, like you, I'm not sure whether the new remastered editions are better. I no longer have the LP's so I can't do a comparo. Oh, another album I have is Two of A Mind, with Gerry Mulligan. No guitar, no piano, just bass and drums. So, it's up to your inner "harmonic" ear to blend Desmond's alto sax and Mulligan's baritone notes together. I hope the above helps (and yes, I got carried away again with the details but please don't diss me, sir).
KEGGER Gold Member Username: Kegger MICHIGAN Post Number: 1872 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 00:25 GMT Don you bring up a good point! "Then recording each individual instruement seperatly on a seperate track with multiple microphones capturing every little sound and harmonic the singer or player has to offer. And doing each one until they are satisfied it's the best they can do. What about the soul? Can you capture it individually and put it all together?" not sure where your post went but I did see it in my email. "When you record a singer together with the band or the orchestra, or a group of musicians together, you are capturing the heart and soul as it occurs at that precise moment." Good point can't argue against that. But does that mean when everything is recorded seperate that there is no feeling or soul? Can the induviduals create their own feelings and soul when they play or sing? And again if what one listens for is the sound of the instrument or voice is that not still music. meaning if it wasn't soul one was after but just the sound. can they still enjoy what they hear as much as someone else? THESE ARE NOT MEANT AS WHAT I LIKE OR CONDENSENTING TO YOUR QUESTIONS DON. BUT MEARLY WONDERINGS AS TO WHAT IS CONSIDDERED MUSIC OR MUSICAL. I'm not sure that is why I ask!
Don RX-1 Silver Member Username: Ojophile ON Post Number: 137 Registered: Jun-04	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 00:43 GMT Larry, Re: Paul Desmond and MJQ Try this one, although the price looks too good to be true. http://www.counterpoint-music.com/Catalogues/Jazz/jazz.d/desmond/ They have a phone no. listed on their home page. Good luck.
Don RX-1 Silver Member Username: Ojophile ON Post Number: 138 Registered: Jun-04	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 00:46 GMT Kegger, I'm still scratching my head wondering where my post went. I also saw it in my e-mail. I had 4 or 5 separate browser windows during the time of my posting. I posted two and another one for Larry but couldn't see them.
Don RX-1 Silver Member Username: Ojophile ON Post Number: 139 Registered: Jun-04	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 00:46 GMT Larry, Re: Paul Desmond and MJQ Try this one, although the price looks too good to be true. http://www.counterpoint-music.com/Catalogues/Jazz/jazz.d/desmond/ They have a phone no. listed on their home page. Good luck.
Don RX-1 Silver Member Username: Ojophile ON Post Number: 140 Registered: Jun-04	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 00:48 GMT Oops, that's a double post. It's 7:30 p.m., I think I should have my dinner and beer now. I'm not functioning well. Later. Sorry for the goofs. Don
Two Cents Silver Member Username: Two_cents Post Number: 339 Registered: Feb-04	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 01:06 GMT Rick, I've only known one Special Forces guy. He also happened to be a graduate of the Wharton School, read a lot of Trollope and Huxley, painted, and never talked about his Special Forces experience. In short, he was one of the most interesting persons I've known. He also had the quiet, reserved confidence you mention. Jan and Larry R., I'm also an admirer of Desmond, one of the most underrated and underappreciated jazz musicians of his era imho. I'll have to dig up the recordings I have and put in my two cents worth. Ghia, Just want to let you know not everyone on this thread is 1.5x your age, unless you're 26 or so. If you ever want to feel really young, go to a classical concert. It's one of the side benefits I've discovered of attending live classical performances
Larry R Silver Member Username: Larry_r Naples, FL Post Number: 190 Registered: Oct-04	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 02:05 GMT Don: many thanks, my friend - will surely check out all of your links and suggestions. I'm trying very hard to find out if RCA will be reissuing the Desmond CDs in their new SACD format. So far, no luck. They say all of their Living Stereo discs will be re-mastered, but that's a lot of discs, and I wonder how many people would buy the Desmond ones??? As to "diss" - the word is not even extant in our conversations, my friend. Doesn't exist. Two Cents - will surely agree with your assessment of Desmond - but then, as a former "ax" man, I love anyone who is as expressionistic and professional as Desmond was. So sad that he had to have that 3-pack-a-day habit that killed him. . . Will have some comments later on "Discoveries." More anon. . . PS - Ghia really IS 26. . .
Don RX-1 Silver Member Username: Ojophile ON Post Number: 141 Registered: Jun-04	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 02:22 GMT Re: my missing posts / earlier replies to Kegger's: "What about the soul? Can you capture it individually and put it all together?" "When you record a singer together with the band or the orchestra, or a group of musicians together, you are capturing the heart and soul as it occurs at that precise moment." Here's the scenario I was trying to paint before hunger set in earlier: Case no. 1 Musicians: Kegger -- drums; MyRantz -- lead and rhythm guitar, vocals; John A. -- electric bass, Larry R. -- alto sax / tenor sax; Ghia -- piano, supporting vocal harmonies Jan -- engineer Set up: 3 mics Song no. 1, Take 1 The band plays the song straight. MR sings the first two verses, plays an 8-bar solo, then sings the refrain and the last verse. Meanwhile, Ghia comps (accompanies) on piano but doesn't play a solo. Larry plays a brief 4 bar fill-in; MR sings a 4-bar coda, a 2-part harmony with Ghia. Kegger ends the song with a standard "crash" on the cymbal and chokes it (grabs the cymbal immediately after the crash). Jan marks it as Take # 001. He and the band review the results. Good. But as an SOP, both Jan and the band agree to do another take. Song no. 1, Take 2 The band plays the song. MR sings the first two verses, but this time, just before his 8-bar solo ends, he holds up four fingers, flips them, to indicate he wants to play another 8 bars. John, Kegger, Larry, and Ghia nod their heads in agreement. Kegger plays a fill-in on the toms to segue into MR's next 8-bar solo. MR sings the refrain and the last verse. Larry plays his brief 4-bar fill-in but it sounds differently than his first improv on Take 1. MR sings a 4-bar coda, a 2-part harmony with Ghia. Kegger ends the song with a "crash" on the cymbal and chokes it. Jan marks it as Take # 002. He and the band review the results. A collective smile and "This is getting good!" Both Jan and the band agree to do another take. Song no. 1, Take 3 The band starts the song. MR sings the first two verses, changes the lyrics "hold me" to "take me"; plays his 8-bar solo. John plays a different bass pattern on the refrain; looks at Ghia and forms the word "solo" on his lips, nods towards Ghia. Ghia takes the hint and plays a beautiful 16-bar funk solo. At the last note, Larry picks it up and plays an 8-bar improv; looks at MR and nods at him to indicate to him to pick up the refrain and the last 4 bars and coda from there. Kegger ends the song on the "crash" cymbal but this time leaves it to decay instead of choking it. As soon as Jan raises his thumb and slices his index finger across his neck to indicate that the tapes are no longer running, the band expresses a collective, "Wow, that was some good sh!t!" Jan marks it as Take # 003. He and the band review the results. They will continue recording together the rest of the album material with the same spontaneity. Case no. 2 Same musicians, same engineer. What is different? Ghia can't make it, she has a guest gig with Aimee Mann. She'll play her parts the next day on Track 8 (acoustic piano) and Track 9 (electric piano) if needed. Larry is playing at the Blue Note with Roy Hargrove. He will dub his alto sax parts on Track 10 next week. The remaining band members play Song no. 1 and let it go through. Since Ghia and Larry are not there, they're not sure whether they should perhaps extend the chorus a bit to allow room for the two to do an improv. Take 2 and Take 3 are nearly the same, although MR still manages to do some spontaneous improvs here and there. The rest of the songs are recorded. Ghia comes in next day, puts the headphones on, listens to Song no. 1, plays her comp. She feels like playing a nice 16-bar solo, but the guys didn't provide room for that. Oh, well, just comp it. For the rest of the tracks, she alternates between electric piano and acoustic piano. When done, she leaves. Larry arrives at the studio a week later, goes through the same motion as Ghia did. Plays his bit but doesn't feel it. The band gets together again after another week to review the rough mix. Tweaks here and there on each track are made to patch or enhance the passages. Jan puts together the pieces and comes up with a final edit. Goes home to listen to his Mac, pours a Chivas and puts Paul Desmond on the table. Another recording day.
Larry R Silver Member Username: Larry_r Naples, FL Post Number: 192 Registered: Oct-04	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 02:35 GMT Don: That jibes PERFECTLY with the reaction I got years ago when I made a TV report on a jazz recording session in Chicago. The musicians, to a person, thought the "bit at a time" production was good - but lacked the "soul" that they felt nightly in their live performances. Somehow, I always thought it showed up on the final record. I would hate to look back on my simple and short-lived music career and include "box pickup" in the list of accomplishments. Yes, you can do it. No, it will never (in my opinion) be as good as an all-together session. Of course, I feel the same way about opera - it should ALWAYS (in my opinion, guyz-n-gal) be recorded with an audience. The differences are not subtle here - performers give much more when there is an audience. . . More anon. . .
Don RX-1 Silver Member Username: Ojophile ON Post Number: 142 Registered: Jun-04	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 02:50 GMT And again if what one listens for is the sound of the instrument or voice is that not still music. meaning if it wasn't soul one was after but just the sound. can they still enjoy what they hear as much as someone else? Of course, they can, absolutely. Point well taken, Kegger; can't argue with that either.
Don RX-1 Silver Member Username: Ojophile ON Post Number: 144 Registered: Jun-04	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 03:16 GMT (Kegger, this is a continuation. I hit the "Post message" button too soon.) What I wanted to say was, when musicians record their parts separately, it is almost akin to an assembly line. As to the mic placement, I have no issues about multi-micing or using Plexiglas to isolate the sound. I don't see either method as isolating the music or hampering the creativity in it. My own reference materials are mostly acoustic jazz. My "electric" stuff is old classic rock. Classical reference is a mix of piano, guitar (Segovia, Breams, Romero, Parkening, Williams). But don't get me wrong, had the technology that we have today existed at the time Andres Segovia, Artur Rubinstein, The Allman Bros. Band, or Bill Evans were busy recording, I would be more thrilled at the realism of the recorded sound of their instruments coming out of my speakers.
J. Vigne Unregistered guest	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 04:56 GMT Alright, I'll try not to sound arrogant about this. Kegger asks what is music. We can certainly take John's approach to perfect sound and look in the dictionary, find the definition of the word and decide that anything much past the random banging on a toy drum by a 1 year old can be considered music. And there are many styles of music throughout the world that, to this day, have little resemblance to what the Western ear percieves as music. Music that leaves us cold even when performed by masters of the art. But more to the point of our discussion are the "styles" most familiar and pleasing to Western sensibilities. Don's example of spontaneity is a good place to start. As the engineer I would have to decide how many channels and how many microphones I needed to get the results on tape that I had in my head. If I hang two or three mics across the stage I can pick up every instrument in a "natural" acoustic. As the musicians work through the piece and make their changes it is then their responsiblility to make the adjustments in levels and dynamics throughout the piece to get the sound they want within the interplay of the group. As the engineer, I sit back and make sure everything goes according to plan. My job is merely to record the process as it happens. If the group listens to the various takes and everything is working on their end but they feel the piano needs some highlights while Ghia does her solo then another mic gets added to the mix and I ride the levels during the performance to give that extra boost to Ghia's handiwork. Depending on how much I boost the level Ghia's piano goes from existing within the natural, three dimensional space captured by the main mics to being the width of the stage and possibly in front of everyone else even though the piano actually sits stage left about five feet back from the guitar and sax. The natural flow of the music is uninterrupted but the listener who has, to this point, become used to and expecting of the natural soundstage we started with is suprised at the sudden prominence of the piano and his/her attention is drawn away from the performance and to the production. A moment of communication between the artists and the listener is broken and the listener who expects consistency is taken out of their zone for a moment. And this happens because until that time in the recording the stage had been set for a natural acoustic and now that rule has been broken. One of the rules of performing is the audiance will accept whatever happens if you have informed them it can happen. In the above case the listener was never "warned" that the piano could grow ten feet in size and move about the stage. If, on the other hand the group had been mic'd with twenty microphones and each was assigned a channel that could ride up and down and be enhanced to make a given player sound as if they are playing in the group or playing forty feet behind the group or that the listener had just climbed inside the guitar amp and had each string coming from a different location atround him, then the listener is more willing to accept that any of those things can happen in the context of this recording. But the group is still playing together and the recording is done with one take chosen as the one that makes the album, with some judicious editing for the few flubs that were made during the otherwise good take. Does that make the performance any less musical? Probably not, but it makes the engineer another performer. What it does is take away things I value. It first sets a stage where anything can happen. I have never found myself inside a guitar amp so that is disturbing to me and it places my mind on the production more than the music. If the piano solo moves back and forth between front right and rear left I find myself in a world that has no relation to what I have come to expect and so I'm waiting for the next production device to roll across the stage. The album becomes something that could never be performed live and it takes on a different set of values. When you listen to DSOTM you are listening as much to the effects as you are to the music. Every time you listen to it you know were and when certain effects will happen. And the only way it can be made is for the musicians to record bits and pieces and edit them into what they want the whole thing to be. Similar to the process Don describes in his second example. Play what fits, no more. That's still music but it has less to do with the musicians and more to do with the editing process. Everything about the album has been thought out in advance and it will work when all those pieces are cut and fit as planned. And the only way it can exist is being played through a system. There are recordings I own which fit that mold and they are enjoyable for what they are, a studio construction. Take Don's group again and let them exist in a natural space with three mics across the stage. (One of the reasons for the three mics as opposed to two is the little extra ability it gave the engineer to control the extra boost that a given instrument might need without upsetting the overall balance.) As the group works through the various takes they start to work off each other. When they first came in Larry had Mer's crowns on his mind and Ghia was mad about a fight with BF over tires. Rantz is feling pretty good for his own reasons (thinking about Ms. Theron, no doubt). Kegger's ready to go with the flow and John is wired on coffee, cigarettes and the latest conspiracy novel he just read. At first the group just doesn't fit together and though they make music they know they can do better. Rantz works with Ghia and John gets excited about what he's got in his head, he starts throwing out ideas on what he thinks will work. Pretty soon everybody is picking up on the energy of the group and finding the moments when they can lay back just a bit more or throw a note into the silence bewteen Rantz and John that gives the whole piece some momentum and drive. By the fifth take everybody is listening and working with each other to make something that becomes more than what was on paper when they started. As the engineer I'm telling them how good it sounds and they appreciate the compliment and work me as an audience member. Even though there are a few flubs in the final take, the way everyone has listened to one another, each player covers the litle mistakes that occur and something special happens with the communication both musically and physically, and especially mentally, to make an album that is a one time performance that was captured on tape that day. If the group plays the piece one more time it will be different. Ghia's become tired, John needs more coffee and Larry has another place to be in an hour. Between the two examples, is one less musical than the other? No, not really. But one can be put back together with all the bits and pieces that were recorded for that purpose and another album just like the first can be made. The other performance is gone and will never exist exactly the same way again. The performers captured what they thought was the best of that moment; and, when they were done, the work was done. As with a stage play every performance is diferent and no two are alike. It is a function of the communication between the artists and the audience. If every perfomer in "Streetcar Named Desire" performed their lines in a different room it would be the complete play but it wouldn't be the same as performing together before an audience. Performance is, most often, a give and take between performers. It is a dynamic situation. Which piece is more special to the listener? That is for each of us to decide. I know which one I would be more interested in hearing. The group working together is a piece of art that existed only in that monent and was experienced by those in the room. The piece put together in the studio is art, but it is art the same way performing Tennesee Williams over the telephone is art.
KEGGER Gold Member Username: Kegger MICHIGAN Post Number: 1874 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 05:39 GMT I'm still reading jan's post! Don: that was excelent and I see your point and the advantage you and jan speak of! Great creativity on your part. I'd like to hear both the version you speak of on that. And the version with indivduals all mic'ed up! Good stuff!
KEGGER Gold Member Username: Kegger MICHIGAN Post Number: 1875 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 06:03 GMT Good stuff both Don and Jan. And I could actually feel the passion in your writing! I think both "or more" ways of recording have there advantages and disadvantages, like jan said if the piano goes all over the place "or any other instruement" And your not prepared for that or don't like that kindof unatural feeling to your performance then the engineer can screw the whole thing up for you. I can understand that. But if instruements moving or getting larger then life don't bother you or you rather even enjoy that, it's still a musical performance that you can enjoy also. I think the big deciding factor is the imaging! If it's all screwd up and that is one of your favorite parts of music enjoyment then your probably not going to like the piece. Not to mention the spontinaity of the 1 time recording.
John A. Gold Member Username: John_a Post Number: 2512 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 07:12 GMT Thanks to Don for the recording session. That is skilled story-telling! I think we should have put Song no. 1, Take 3 in the can. Everything can be improved. Where do you draw the line? I somehow see Jan on vocals. But performing and recording at the same time is a nightmare; many amateurs will have tried that at some stage. Probably the best recording engineer is a nerd with no musical aspirations. At least not for the takes for which he is responsible Would you get around the multiple takes and editing if you also had a producer?
John A. Gold Member Username: John_a Post Number: 2513 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 07:36 GMT I have read Jan's post now, too, and thank him, just as Kegger did. Then, there is the live recording at an Old Dogs' gig, in front of an audience. If they do the same performance on different nights, they can record them all, and they can decide which take of which number they prefer to go into the album. If they still want to change things, they can go back to the performance venue for another session, but it will not sound the same, and they will not play the same or interact with each other the same, without the audience there.
KEGGER Gold Member Username: Kegger MICHIGAN Post Number: 1876 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 07:51 GMT Good to hear from you john. I'd be interested in your rendetion of recording techniques! Maybe even how you you believe a proper surround recording should be. As you seem to enjoy both forms.
John A. Gold Member Username: John_a Post Number: 2515 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 09:54 GMT Thanks, Kegger. Well, for stereo, I agree with Jan completely, but would tend leave out the centre mike. Jan wrote: (One of the reasons for the three mics as opposed to two is the little extra ability it gave the engineer to control the extra boost that a given instrument might need without upsetting the overall balance.) It seems to me the "extra boost" is not what you would have heard if you had been at the performance; it is the thin end of the wedge. At the thick end is Deutsche Grammophon. Two mikes covering the same sound field but separated in space so they receive the sound waves at slightly different times; that is, the stereo recording is made so that the position of the various sound sources can be reconstructed simply, by the listener, from the phase difference between the same sound on the two channels. That is, broadly a "Blumlein pair", as I understand it. I know there is more to be said about amplitude responses as a function of angle and the shape of the response field (- 3 dB at 60 º or similar), but I do not remember what they are. Actually "never understood" is the simple truth! My problem with that centre mike (just as with the centre speaker) is, first, that it is there to allow the engineer to "get in on the act" by fiddling with balance, but, also, it takes a simple phase reconstruction, which we do all the time, instinctively, because that is how we hear direction of sound with our two ears, and makes it massively more complicated to get right. If you get timings a bit wrong with stereo, maybe the sound stage is a bit skewed, but it can still sound good, and the image is still there, just not quite in the right place. But you can correct for that. Get conflicting, different sound stages where there should be one, and you're in real trouble, I should think. With L and R channels you have one phase difference, L/R, between them for each sound source. That should be enough. With L, C, R you have six, I think: L/R; L/C; C/R; (L+C)/R; (L+R)/C; (R+C)/L. That is complicated. You could argue that, if everything is right, you could pinpoint each sound source more accurately, since it has to appear to be in the same place according to all six of those phase differences. But, if you get anything wrong, for exaple, your speakers are not in phase, not correctly place or times, or there was some delay in the response of one of the mikes, I should think the conflicting phase differences would make it impossible to resolve the position of each sound source. Then, with three mikes, are they in a straight line, or along an arc, or what? And don't you have to know this before you can know where to put the three speakers? I do not know this, I am not claiming "Special knowledge" (I do not know when I ever have, actually): it is just a guess, and I admit I have never heard three-channel recordings played through three speakers. I would like to give it a go, though. Seems I'll have to get SACD to play the Mercury and RCA 3-mike recordings. Do they tell you how to set your speaker distances? Some of the 5.1 DVD-As I have do seem to give good pin-point positioning, but I can't say it is better than stereo. Also, many DVD-As just have the engineers fooling around enlarging and shrinking things. (I do not know what is in the heads. Are they trying to force the listener in to giving attention to the things they happen to think are interesting...) Anyway, as far as recording surround sound, I really do not know how it is done, and would be interested to know. My "gut reaction" is just get another Blumlein pair of directional mikes, but facing backwards. You miss out the phase problems with the front mikes if two pairs' sensitivity fields do not overlap. Another way of doing it could be to have four mikes each with 180 º fields, each mike at 90 º to the ones next to it. That could give you stereo on each of the four sides of your room, I'm not sure. That's the sort of thing I am looking for, from surround sound. I'd like to see a diagrm of the microphone positions and layout for some great 4.0 recordings I have. I do not disagree about more channels; we've butted heads before, Kegger, on this, but, like I said, I am no longer really sure what I think. If we accept the need for three mikes/speakers at the front, then we may as well have three at the back, giving six. I also could see a case, as before, for having six pointing at 60 º to each other. But if you look at recommended layouts of 6.1 speakers systems I throw up my hands; I am quite sure I do not understand what they are trying to do. The "Arrogant" bit probably comes in if I add "...and I am not sure they know, either". But your local shop is full of recordings where the engineers had not thought about what they were trying to achieve, even in stereo. Or else, they made crazy assumptions about the listener and his speakers. I don't think it is arrogant to say that. There are lots of areas where an amateur can occasionally do a better job than a professional. What would you do, Kegger? I find it tough and time-consuming, trying to write this sort of stuff. It does not make for easy reading, either, I know. We need a forum whiteboard to draw diagrams!
Ghia Cabriolet Silver Member Username: Ghiacabriolet NC Post Number: 519 Registered: Apr-04	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 14:08 GMT Don, Jan and John, Excellent! I especially enjoyed the part about getting to do a 16 bar funk solo. :-) Thanks for taking the time to put that together. 2C, Yes, I am still 26. A few months ago, we had my 12th annual 26th birthday party. Well, we're off to the Christmas tree farm. Cheers!
J. Vigne Unregistered guest	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 15:00 GMT John - You've heard the results of three channels folded in to two on the Mercury recordings I sent you. Does that give any indication to you of "phase shift" from the center microphone? If so, I can't hear it. But, as we've discussed, you listen far more intently that I do. When I wrote the line about three mics I knew there would be questions and comments. John, you are assuming the engineer will ride levels during the recording. That was not my intent in the description and I don't believe that was the intent of the engineers who utilized this lay out. The microphones are placed, usually in a shallow arc, across the stage and levels are set. The two outer mics pick up the performers as you would hear them if your ears were twelve feet apart. The center channel is used to give a sense of space by picking up the ambiance of the hall (being slightly out front from the other two mics, the engineer can adjust how much ambiance is on the tape by adjusting the direction the mic points and adjusting levels; and, remember, when we talk '50 -'60's recordings the variety of microphone patterns was still in the future, most mics were either omni or 180 patterns). If the center mic is pointed in toward the performers, its feed can be adjusted to give a greater sense of depth to the recording. Centers were seldom set at the same level as the two outer mics. Once the levels are set they remain set and don't change during the recording. The problem with this set up is two fold, depending on your feeling about recording techniques. The first is what I mentioned about your ears being twelve feet apart. This "problem" brought about the binaural, Blumlein, Decca tree, Ambisonics and other lay outs of mics as the various mic patterns evolved. The odd thing that engineers ran into was the closer the elements of the mics were placed, the more phase problems occurred. So, at that point, the efort was on how to get the number of elements needed as close together as possible, trying to create a point source. Each mic set up had its proponents and detractors. Some, like the Decca tree became known as the way you would hear a recording when you bought an album from that label. Quite a bit of this early experimentation came from the British who, naturally, insisted on standards that were rigorously maintained. The other problem with the simple three mic set up is what to do when Ghia insists her solo contributions are more important than anyone else's and wants the levels and size of the piano to rise and come forward in the mix for her big moment(s). She's been on five talk shows this week and her picture is on the magazine covers and she knows why the fans buy "her" albums. Larry is trying to get the ol' lady off his back, pay alimony to his first three wives and get that great kit he saw in New York last time they toured; he wants his mic louder so he'll get a solo recording contract. Rantz is just looking to get out of there cause he's got to meet his supermodel mistress at the Bentley dealership, "Just putitin the red, man! What part o'that don't you understand?" Kegger is, "Whatever! Pass me another Fosters. Man, these tubes are sounding groovey. Give me some more juice for when it starts to breakup". John is convinced there is a conspiracy to get him out of the group so he wants his mics brought up front to show the rest they can't get along without him. He's learned some new techniques on the sitar and wants to put them to use on the bass. "That'll teach the blokes how it's done!!!" Jan takes another big swig of Chivas. The solutions to this problem can be heard on just about any DG recording from the late '70's through the early '90's. 64 tracks and 88 microphones become the norm. The problem then infects other music styles and the multitrack, overdubbed recording is now here to stay. The alternative to this is the "Sgt. Peppers" and DSOTM. The frustration of the artists/producer/engineer to be limited to only four tracks led to the multitrack mixers of today. This permitted the layering and other effects that were required to capture what the artists/producer/engineer had in their head(s). This became an acceptable way to record for its own merits. But, at that point the concepts changed from the given standards of what to expect when you bought an album to what would you hear this time when you bought the latest production. Today the recording techniques are as varied as the breakfast cereal aisle. Some hold steadfast to certain ideas while others go for what is new and hot. The advent (again) of multi channel surround has created more new techniques and the "standards" of what you can expect from a label are different from label to label and album to album. My positon would be there are very few engineers who simply set levels and leave the board alone after that. Post production has become more important than the recording studio in many cases where post production in the three mic days was a razor balde. Whether what we have today is good or bad is up to the person buying the product. And it is the topic of this thread.
Larry R Silver Member Username: Larry_r Naples, FL Post Number: 195 Registered: Oct-04	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 15:08 GMT G-day from Swampville: Good postings, all - and I'm still impressed with the word-poetry of our good friend, Don! Here, here - hear, hear, et al, fer shore!! Mer - who oft takes time out of her alligator-infested art studio to read some of the forum-postings - said that she has formed "pictures" of each of you in her mind (which is a most unusual one! GRIN) Take them or leave them - and certainly don't comment on them - unless, of course, you wish to. Kegger: A tall, rather "chunky" fellow with light hair and sore feet - and an infectious laugh you can hear across the street. Soft-spoken, wears glasses to read. John A. Medium height, walks with a quick step and leaning forward. Gray hair that's receeding in the middle - a "pink" complexion and a ready but tense smile. But talks too fast, and often gets "tongue-tied" because thoughts come faster than words. Don: Tall, dark hair, glasses with one eye stronger than the other, rather thin. Speaks slowly, and passionately. Has long fingers and strong hands. Reads a lot and loves to do so. Jan V. Thick, "Domingo" hair and a round face. Rather short, with some sort of physical problem, either sore back, legs, something like that. Speaks ver rapidly in a fine, tenor voice. Should be a singer. Rick: Light-colored hair, very thin on top. About 5-9 in height, in trim shape, but with a "hitch" to his walk. Green eyes and an intense look - not overly humorous, but laughs easily. Very large, strong hands. Ghia: About 5-4 in height, with short, dark, pretty hair. Quite thin, but not "skinny." Has a "tinkley" laugh and a quick temper that fades in a short time. Very feminine hands of which she's proud. Two Cents: About 5-7, on the thin side, with a moustache or beard, wire glasses, and brown hair that's quite short. Dark, intense eyes and precise speech peppered with descriptive words. A near-photographic memory? My Rantz: A medium-height man - wide in shape, but not fat - sandy to red hair that curls and blows in the wind - quick temper and a rounded laugh that makes others laugh as well. Fast-talker with a low voice. Y'all know what Mer and I look like - fer good or ill - so you have an advantage. Mer did the above "pictures" just for fun - but claims that she "sees" y'all that way. I take her comments with chunks of salt - every day. (grin) Don: your "Discoveries" post cost me some money, my friend! But please, as the song says: "do it again." Great sounds - soon to grace our listening room!!! More anon . . .
John A. Gold Member Username: John_a Post Number: 2516 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 15:28 GMT Thanks, Ghia. That makes me only 1.42 times your age, which cheers me up considerably. Rick makes the round 1.5, I think. Personally I would give you 32 bars. At the very least. Going back to the recording, of course, for many genres of music, microphones are now part of the act, because some or all of it is intended to be amplified. Lead vocalists do not have to project their voices for most rock and pop etc. I would still want to record the Old Dog All-Stars from separate microphones, not mixing up the different jobs microphones have to do. That would be the only way to get the sound of the performance the audience hears at one of our many acclaimed gigs, amplification and all. Then there are many jazz groups who sort of share one centre microphone, taking it in turns to use it for their solos, then backing off a bit for Les toutes ensemble. I don't know what you'd do about that, for recording. As above, I should think. I am sorry to keep changing the genre, but the recordings I can cite as really doing something all come from "natural" performances, and that is the domain still of "serious" music (that is a bad term; I still do not know what else to call it "classical" is actively misleading, in most cases). Massively recommended for sound quality, recording integrity, and performance: Vivaldi Dixit Dominus, Jubilate &c by the Toronto-based Aradia Ensemble and Chorus. Naxos DVD-A 5.110064. Much better than the Charpentier. Recorded about six months later (Sept 2003). They seem to have fired and replaced a very dodgy tenor, amongst other improvements. Great sound of being there, in a church in Toronto. Hats off to the engineer and producer, named on the disc as Norbert Kraft and Bonnie Silver. I shall Google them to see if they have ever written on where to put microphones. Other things in that great disc, for me: 1. 5.1 is great. Yes, maybe that centre channel is fixing things in place a bit better. It is a great sound, anyway. I'd love to hear some old doggish views on this recording. 2. I had never heard of any of the performers, before. I think the recording industry ought to support, and bring us, young talent. I get tired of all this "legend" stuff. Looking at these people's bios in the booklets, they must be in their twenties, mostly. For example there is a ravishing soprano named Jane Archibald, Canadian, and "a 2004 Adler Fellow at the San Franciso Opera" whatever that is. Watch out for that lady. What a stunning voice. Really. Larry, turn off your dynamic range compression, and listen to that lady, young enough to be your granddaughter. Taking care to put away any wine glasses, first. 3. Canada has a ripping baroque "period instruments" group there. Fantastic phrasing. Beats the London Mozart players doing Vivaldi, on every count. "Yah, boo" to these condescending Europeans, especially the snobbish Brits, with their "Academies of Ancient Music" and all that pompous stuff. 4. A = 415 Hz. Larry, I am trying to wind you up....! 5. The "Gloria" is not the one in TV ads. That was a pleasant surprise. So I heard some new music, too. It is really good. Just my opinion, you understand...
Larry R Silver Member Username: Larry_r Naples, FL Post Number: 196 Registered: Oct-04	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 15:47 GMT John A. - "dynamic range compression?" A new one on me, sir! Hmmm. . . I have always said that A should equal 415. Many of my Chicago-musician friends heartily agree. Too bad that most of the world's A's are now 440 - except for those "horrible old period instruments" about which you so glowlingly speak. (double grin) Interesting that you should mention Toronto as a music "hot-spot" - little did Don know, perhaps, that he's in recording heaven? Paul Desmond made what may have been his best-ever recordings there back in 1975. You still haven't commented on the dynamic range in the Mahler symphonies - and wonder if it bothers you the way it does me (and Mer). Maybe I need to get back to chamber music, after all? Hmmm. . . More anon. . .
Sem Silver Member Username: Sem New York USA Post Number: 351 Registered: Mar-04	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 16:16 GMT quote: Here's the scenario I was trying to paint before hunger set in earlier: Case no. 1 Musicians: Kegger -- drums; MyRantz -- lead and rhythm guitar, vocals; John A. -- electric bass, Larry R. -- alto sax / tenor sax; Ghia -- piano, supporting vocal harmonies Jan -- engineer Set up: 3 mics Don, Excellent!! Where can I get tickets??
John A. Gold Member Username: John_a Post Number: 2517 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 16:21 GMT Jan, Does that give any indication to you of "phase shift" from the center microphone? No, but those engineers sure as hell knew what they were doing, and I assume they were the ones who merged the three into two, for stereo. But put those three channels straight into the average surround-sound system and I wonder what you get. Thanks for the stuff on microphones. You are way ahead of me on all this; the "Decca tree" and so on. All I can say is Decca (thought they were "London") in N. America) did a good job, in my opinion. Some of their Chicago Symphony recordings for example, I would put up there with Mercury LP. Jan, that is a great, great post. Whether what we have today is good or bad is up to the person buying the product. And it is the topic of this thread. That is how it is. But, to follow the story... The other problem with the simple three mic set up is what to do when Ghia insists her solo contributions are more important than anyone else's and wants the levels and size of the piano to rise and come forward in the mix for her big moment(s). Get another pianist. Man, you must hear the kettle-drum player in that Toronto Charpentier I mentioned - it is not even in the score. Someone must have owed him something big, or he was giving the director and engineers back-handers, or something else. They got rid of him for the Vivaldi. Perhaps he is now breeding horses in Wales. But he did not hold a candle to Ginger Baker; just fancied himself in "Cream" instead of the "Aradia Ensemble". She's been on five talk shows this week and her picture is on the magazine covers and she knows why the fans buy "her" albums. Time for a solo career, then. The meteoric rise, the complications, the personal life problems, the fall. Ghia would have been better off staying with the All Stars. We'd take you back, Ghia, honestly we would, but our new pianist is sort of... John is convinced there is a conspiracy to get him out of the group so he wants his mics brought up front to show the rest they can't get along without him. No, it would be the other way. I regard music as sort of gestalt therapy. The reward for me is being a part of something bigger than myself. That may sound pompous. Nevertheless it is what I get from music. Jan takes another big swig of Chivas. I happen to have two glasses, here...
John A. Gold Member Username: John_a Post Number: 2518 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 16:28 GMT Don, Excellent!! Where can I get tickets?? But, Sem, you're in it. You don't need tickets. Choose you weapon. You still haven't commented on the dynamic range in the Mahler symphonies. I like it.
J. Vigne Unregistered guest	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 16:47 GMT http://www.josephson.com/mictech.html http://www.recordinglair.com/record/studio/mictech.htm A better discussion of pahse relationships for John: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1997_articles/feb97/stereomiking.html This discusses a three mic set up, though they rely on modern microphone patterns for the technique: http://www.professional-sound.com/sound/spr195.htm Same here: http://www.mikesounds.co.uk/m_s_mics.htm Another discussion of just how many mics can be used on one recording: http://www.recordinglair.com/record/location/micplace.htm Quite comprehensive for basic information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphone All these were found easily with "microphone technique" put into a Yahoo search engine.
J. Vigne Unregistered guest	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 16:58 GMT Get another pianist. Yes, and then there's the litigation the drug addiction and rehab (several times), the ego crushing sense that she has let her fans down, the comeback, the drug addiction and rehab, the comeback, the talk show circuit, the magazine shots, the rumors she doesn't look as good as she did before "the problems", the litigation over copyrights from her early period music output, the drug addiction and rehab (not to mention the drinking), the finding Jesus period, the spiritual music tour, the duets with older and newer stars, the breakup with her fifth manager, when they find a young lover dead in her Manhattan apartment, the lawsuit by her body guard, the book deal, the children's book deal ... well, you get the idea. Best to just jack up the gain on her track and change it back in post production. This album isn't going to be released for at least twenty five years, when it appears as "The Lost Tapes" session. "When we opened up the cans, we knew we had a treasure trove in front of us."
J. Vigne Unregistered guest	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 17:07 GMT How to mix down in the studio: http://www.amptone.com/g197.htm http://www.recordingeq.com/EQ/req0501/bassclry.htm http://www.recordinginstitute.com/alex/alex02-2/ http://www.discmakers.com/music/pse/index.asp http://www.discmakers.com/music/pse/index.asp http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan02/articles/practicalmixing.asp Surround mixing: http://www.ambisonic.net/ambimix.html
J. Vigne Unregistered guest	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 17:36 GMT Here's the story on the Mercury recordings. When these were recorded, the mics were hung in a straight line across the stage. Height and distance between the mics was critical to obtain coverage and minimize phase problems. John, I haven't tried it but I se no reason why you can't try a hook up of a phantom center channel using the information I sent you about P. Klipsch's experiments in the '50's. You want a summed signal for the center. Assuming your amplifier can feed the two positives of your channels together you should get a center channel. Or, since Pro Logic is the off shoot of the phantom center channel, set your mc system up for three speakers and Pro Logic operation. Not exactly what Cozart Fine had in mind but it will get you close. "'Already in 1955 he experimented and compared the quality of 2 and 3 track stereo. He said that only recordings made with 3 channels could provide a good stereo-image.' Those of you readers who have witnessed the rise (and decline I should say in some sections) of the high-fidelity scene through the years or have read about the often painstaking trials that led to the wonderful achievements in the sixties when the analogue soundreproduction was at its peak, may know that especially in the beginning period of stereo amateurs used a center-channel, that is to say that a third loudspeaker was placed in between the stereopair to produce a signal that was the subtraction of left minus right channels. Others experimented with a 'mid-speaker' that radiated the addition of the left and right signals, but at a finely adjusted level." Good Grief, Charley Brown!!! Did she say decline of high fidelity??? Who's she been talking to?
J. Vigne Unregistered guest	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 17:45 GMT http://www.tnt-audio.com/topics/lse.html
J. Vigne Unregistered guest	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 17:58 GMT http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue4/pearsall.htm "As I mentioned earlier, the magnificent Mercury-commissioned McIntosh Labs 200 watt tube amplifier, driving their hot-rod Westrex cutting heads, set the bar higher than ever before."
J. Vigne Unregistered guest	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 18:02 GMT My most sincere apologies if this makes me "come across as Chief Ranger of Audio". I had some time on my hands.
KEGGER Gold Member Username: Kegger MICHIGAN Post Number: 1877 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 20:10 GMT LARRY: "Kegger: A tall, rather "chunky" fellow with light hair and sore feet - and an infectious laugh you can hear across the street. Soft-spoken, wears glasses to read." The only thing that would need to change is I wear glasses all the time! lol ____________________________________________ JOHN: I DID NOT MEAN TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT. Just felt since you were a starter to this thread you may want to chime in, also since you seem to support both new/old/2channel/surround I'd be very interested in your thoughts. And I found what you had to say very insightful. I don't have much time today as i've got some projects. But john this: "I do not disagree about more channels; we've butted heads before, Kegger, on this, but, like I said, I am no longer really sure what I think. If we accept the need for three mikes/speakers at the front, then we may as well have three at the back, giving six. I also could see a case, as before, for having six pointing at 60 º to each other. But if you look at recommended layouts of 6.1 speakers systems I throw up my hands; I am quite sure I do not understand what they are trying to do. The "Arrogant" bit probably comes in if I add "...and I am not sure they know, either". But your local shop is full of recordings where the engineers had not thought about what they were trying to achieve, even in stereo. Or else, they made crazy assumptions about the listener and his speakers. I don't think it is arrogant to say that. There are lots of areas where an amateur can occasionally do a better job than a professional. What would you do, Kegger? " Well It would seem to me we have a few things to consider when recording a multichannel album. Hear are 2 I think of. 1. Are we trying to recreate an event. 2. How many channels is our surround mix going to have. And I agree if your going to have 3 channels accross the front. Then you should have 3 accross the back. I would also add that I believe a channel on each side. And that the centers front and rear are back farther from the 2 speakers next to them. so when looking from the top you create an egg shape, thus giving you 8 channels plus a sub track or 2. But you can't really do that because no one will be able to play it back. So you need to look at what the industry has provided for us in our homes. So now do you record for 7.1 or 5.1 "unfortunitaly for me" 5.1 is probably the right answer because way more people run 5.1 verse 7.1. so if your recording 5.1 in a studio and your not trying to recreate an event. It seems you could mic up every instruement with multiple mic's to catch every sound the instruement makes using 6 channels from those mic's "5.1" plus 2 mic's in every position where a speaker would basically be in a 5.1 setup. ( 1 mic facing the instruement and one the other direction) 12 channels Now you are recording 18 seperate channels with basically every position recorded. so now you have 18 channels to pretty much create the surround experience you want and it was created with a 5.1 mix in mind. And you could put an instruement anywhere you want because it was recorded from all speaker placements. You could blend channels, whatever you thought was needed to get what you were looking for. Yes now you have to leave it in the engineers hands to do it justice. (I know that scares a lot of people) Now if your trying to put together a surround mix from previously recorded material then a setup that had individuals playing and recorded on seperate tracks would lend itself to be a better subject then one recorded all at once with 2 or 3 mic's (I would imagine)
Larry R Silver Member Username: Larry_r Naples, FL Post Number: 197 Registered: Oct-04	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 20:30 GMT Kegger: hope you took no offense at Mer's description. After all, she lives with a "chunky" guy - 6-2 and 230 - so for her, that's just "teddy bear" description! (grin) Rick: I THINK I may be getting it, sir! Took off my squishy-feet on the Yamaha today - after playing two of my favorite Paul Desmond tracks several times. Put on not three but four cones, checked to see if there was any play under any, and there wasn't. Put on the Desmond album again - and I THINK I hear what you hear - the sound sorta came through like silver instead of lead. Am I making sense here? Prob-lee not. OK - I'm going through several types of music, and will post what I THINK I'm hearing. IF this is the difference, and IF I AM hearing anything, well, it's good. BUT I know full well the pitfalls of saying ANYTHING audio-wise is "better" than before. My ears grow weary as I grow older, and I'm never sure that I'm hearing something, or "believe" that I am. Hey, at least it doesn't sound WORSE! Sigh. I work so hard to get the most out of my mid-level system! I will say to all - the Yamaha has made our lives much better - the sound is fuller, warmer, and much more natural. John A. may scold me for using those words, but that's the difference for us. Mer is so happy, and that, alone, is worth the bucks!!! She skipped out on me today - going to some sort of art sale thang with a lot of her goodies to sell (hopefully). She said I'd have to stay behind and catch all the flack from her "pictures" of y'all. OK - it was all in fun, and as she describes me as "a tallish, brown-haired, chubby, decent-spirited guy who can't see closer than 4 feet without specs" -well, there you go! (grin) More anon. . .
Larry R Silver Member Username: Larry_r Naples, FL Post Number: 198 Registered: Oct-04	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 20:33 GMT To all: sorry - but have to ask this right now. How important is it to have the CD player perfectly level? Right now, it's off a very, very small per cent back-to-front. Very small. All answers welcome - I can level it with shims provided by the machinist-guy - metal with self-stick on one side so they don't slide out.
Larry R Silver Member Username: Larry_r Naples, FL Post Number: 199 Registered: Oct-04	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 20:35 GMT OOPS - one more thang, please. RICK - should I put some stickum on the tops of the cones so they don't slide under the cabinet, or not? Have some very thin double-sided tape.
J. Vigne Unregistered guest	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 20:52 GMT If you haven't already, hunt around on this site. I thought it had some interesting information. http://www.recordinglair.com/
J. Vigne Unregistered guest	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 20:59 GMT I forgot to add the link to the Mercury recordings information: http://www.xs4all.nl/~rabruil/mercury.html
John A. Gold Member Username: John_a Post Number: 2519 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 20:59 GMT Jan, "When we opened up the cans, we knew we had a treasure trove in front of us." Sublime post. You forgot only the lost time in Sonoma County and the illicit sales of the Cabriolet Bootleg tapes, the court action, the rumours, the movies, the book. But the new pianist has quickly learned a thing or two, I can tell you. I knew at once that she was receptive to artistic insight, and just needed a guiding hand. Thanks for the hundred links. Will read and inwardly digest. I still have the three-channel files. The problem is the interface with the brain. Kegger, Thanks, too. I will be back. Larry, Ditto. There is a cracking "Kyrie" for midnight on the Charpentier Naxos DVD-A, parts of which are sung in Huron, not widely spoken where I live. Recommended, and not just for Miss Archibald, whose voice could launch a thousand ships. A real "discovery", there. How old I feel.
John A. Gold Member Username: John_a Post Number: 2520 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 21:06 GMT Thanks, again, Jan. I have found some good stuff on phase coherence, channel separation, and 32-bar piano riffs on www.google.com But I will follow those links, honestly I will.
Rick Barnes Silver Member Username: Rick_b New York USA Post Number: 655 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 21:35 GMT Hi All, I will try to catch up. Ghia, I have to plead the 5th on the corporate sponsor. (LOL!) Jan, Yes sir, Mr. Ventura was indeed. I was not referring to Ventura/Stallone themselves, but rather the Hollywood stereotypes they portray in those roles. I'm sorry I didn't make that clearer in my last post. It probably should have read-Rambo? Oh, please.......(LOL!) Larry, Mer is uncanny! Almost dead on except for the light thinning hair and green eyes. Keep experimenting with the cones in terms of placement. Try using 3 under and 1 upside down on top of the player. Keep listening for clarity in the subtle details, and also a little more bass weight and clarity. I would refrain from any adhesive top or bottom. Keep me posted! John, Don, Sem, and all the "DOGS" Cheers!
J. Vigne Unregistered guest	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 23:01 GMT " I was not referring to Ventura/Stallone themselves, but rather the Hollywood stereotypes they portray in those roles" WHAT?! You mean not everyone can run through a hail of 50 automatic weapons and not get a scratch??? Oh, well, at least we have Bruce Willis to save the world.
J. Vigne Unregistered guest	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 23:13 GMT "Jan V. Thick, "Domingo" hair and a round face. Rather short, with some sort of physical problem, either sore back, legs, something like that. Speaks ver rapidly in a fine, tenor voice. Should be a singer." Wow! Dead on with the exception that I'm a little over 6' and weigh about 185 (depending on what lasagne I've made). So not thin but not thick (in body at least). Wouldn't consider my voice a tenor, when I was in High School the nuns (there isn't one around, is there?) wanted me to audition for "The King and I". Until they heard me sing. I have had voice lessons but for theater not music. After I turned 50 everything became sore and hasn't let up so she's right on target there. And my hair is wavy/curly like any good Italian's should be (though one of my best friends in school was named Biondi and had straight blond hair and blue eyes; oh, those Freulians!) Kind of sounds like Mer's been dreamin' of David .... or Placido.
J. Vigne Unregistered guest	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 23:18 GMT Larry - You asked about level for your player; no, it does not have to be perfectly level like a turntable. Close is good enough. I would make certain you have a cone under and over the transformer.
Larry R Silver Member Username: Larry_r Naples, FL Post Number: 200 Registered: Oct-04	Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 23:39 GMT Well, Mer came home, , , and - she said that she'd sold $750USD worth of art - but had to give 35% to the Art League, which sponsored the session. OK - better than a sharp stick in the eye! Welllll - I thought I'd be the Big Guy and all that - and put a CD on the player - with the new cone placement. Mer listened for about five minutes, then said: "Ouch! What happened to the sound!" She called it harsh, hard-edged and distorted. Huh? Well, I took out the cones and put in a small layer of silicone rubber, under which is a thin layer of cork. MUCH BETTER! said the boss-person. OK - I give up. Mer says the soft-feet save her ears, and I'm about at the place where I just give in and go with what she says. Played the Diana Krall disc in both "formats" with cones and with modified soft-feet - and determined for myself that Mer is correct. The cones add a harshness and brightness that doesn't do well with our Polk speakers. Soo - soft feet are back - for now. Triple sigh. I have about determined that minor adjustments to my system don't make all that much difference. The Vivid and silver glop seem to have, however. Don't ask me how or why - I just give up! I still want a system where I just turn it on, press the Red Button, and wonderful sound comes out. Don't give me 3,000 knobs or settings, just give me MUSIC - Please!!! I'm too old to give a tinker's dam. Don - I'll send you an e-mail about my day's listening - re-discovered a most wunnerful disc that eclipsed Ms. Krall to the max! Latr. . . More anon. . .

« Previous Thread Next Thread »

Archive through November 27, 2004

Main Forums

Forum Help

Follow Us