Imaging

[StateDJ85]

I recently listened to a song by Springsteen called "This Heartland" on my Paradigm monitor 9's with a new yamaha amp. I honestly had to check and make sure the center channel wasn't on by some screw up in the amp. The imaging is unlike anything I've heard, especially since it makes the vocals only sound like they're coming from the center channel which is like 3 feet back from where the fronts are. This kind of imaging makes me think that I might not be taking full advantage of the speakers. I'm wondering:

Is it true that the distance between you and the front of the speakers should be equal to the distance they are apart?

should they be pointed at the listening area, or just straight ahead?

if one is in a corner and the other is 2 feet out of the corner, is that going to cause inconsistencies in sound (sp?)

any input is appreciated.

[paul_pci]

I recently listened to a song by Springsteen called "This Heartland" on my Paradigm monitor 9's with a new yamaha amp. I honestly had to check and make sure the center channel wasn't on by some screw up in the amp. The imaging is unlike anything I've heard, especially since it makes the vocals only sound like they're coming from the center channel which is like 3 feet back from where the fronts are. This kind of imaging makes me think that I might not be taking full advantage of the speakers. I'm wondering:

Is it true that the distance between you and the front of the speakers should be equal to the distance they are apart?

should they be pointed at the listening area, or just straight ahead?

if one is in a corner and the other is 2 feet out of the corner, is that going to cause inconsistencies in sound (sp?)

any input is appreciated.


Yeah, imaging is way cool when you get quality speakers. Yes, an equilateral triangle (distance between speakers=distance to listening position) is generally ideal. You will probably want to experiment between facing the speakers straight ahead and toe-ing them into the listening position and see which position you like best. Generally, people advise that each speaker be the same distance from walls, but that's not always possible it and may effect the acoustics, like bass or increase reflections. But you have to work with what you got.

[kexodusc]

Welcome to the wonderful world of audio-insanity...here you'll spend countless hours with measuring tape, a laser pointer, and masking tape trying to guarantee your speakers are exactly equidistant from your listening position and each other.

Toe-in is a brutal excercise in trial and error. Hope you have a friend with nothing better to do, preferrably one that won't make fun of you.

As Paul said, distances to walls will affect response at some frequencies...the sound from a speaker travels in all around the speaker, and bounces off corners, walls, etc, back to the listener. Depending on proximity and geometry, the reflections can amplify the original signal or interfere with it. If possible try to keep the speakers the same distance from the rear wall, and at least 1 foot away from all walls.

While the equilateral triangle with perfect toe-in is a recommended starting point, many speakers perform better with no toe-in at all. Likewise, some speakers prefer you listen closer than distance between them (nearfield) and others prefer you move away from them (farfield). Guess what, your room will play a big role in how your speakers behave. So will your listening preferences.

I toe in my speakers about 20 degrees or so and I sit about 1 foot farfield by necessity. My speakers and room are forgiving of this arrangement, my previous speakers were not.

[hermanv]

It gets better; many recordings have artificial center fill or other mixing tricks to falsely image a band where each instrument was recorded seperately on it's own master tape track. This tends to be more true on POP recordings.

Try to set up your system with smaller groups; Jazz or other acoustic groups with little or no processing. Or at the other extreme, stick to large orchestral works, many of them have not been helped along by a recording engineer spotlighting his company's personal brand of "correctness".

In other words; besides moving yourself and the speakers around sort of endlessly, use multiple disks before making any final decisions. But wait, there's more - next comes the room treatments; carpets, drapes, wall hangings, bass traps, corner traps - whee. Then, try to remember how much fun you're having!

:)

[udomchok]

http://www.sound-map.com/images/1110241077/SM05-005S.jpg

Stereo imaging is presented in diagram called 'Sound Map', please click here and go to Sound Map Picture Gallery (http://www.sound-map.com/)

[JoeE SP9]

I recently listened to a song by Springsteen called "This Heartland" on my Paradigm monitor 9's with a new yamaha amp. I honestly had to check and make sure the center channel wasn't on by some screw up in the amp. The imaging is unlike anything I've heard, especially since it makes the vocals only sound like they're coming from the center channel which is like 3 feet back from where the fronts are. This kind of imaging makes me think that I might not be taking full advantage of the speakers. I'm wondering:

Is it true that the distance between you and the front of the speakers should be equal to the distance they are apart?

should they be pointed at the listening area, or just straight ahead?

if one is in a corner and the other is 2 feet out of the corner, is that going to cause inconsistencies in sound (sp?)

any input is appreciated.
Although speaker positioning is the major factor in getting good imaging, the recording is the key. Only a live recording or recordings done with minimal miking and without overdubbing can exhibit true imaging. All else is nothing more than an engineer manipulating sliders on a mixing board. This is true for most live rock and popular recordings because the signal is taken from the PA mixing boards. For good (true) imaging try the following recording. Jacintha, Here's To Ben. This was recorded directly to 2 track. You get a sense of an actual room with performers in a real space behind and between your speakers.

[toenail]

I think most people's exposure (including mine) to "imaging" is limited mostly to the type created by the man at the board creating left, center, right etc during the mixing process. The "true imaging" referenced by joeE SP9 is something pretty rare for the average listener (though maybe not for folks on this site) to encounter. As such, the mix/recording quality can dictate a TON about what you get during final playback on your system regarding perceived imaging. All other things being equal with my system optimized for environment etc, I will generally gravitate toward recordings with better perceived imaging/accuracy over musical material that I like.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It gets better; many recordings have artificial center fill or other mixing tricks to falsely image a band where each instrument was recorded seperately on it's own master tape track. This tends to be more true on POP recordings.

There is no such thing as "artificial fill". Panning a vocal center, and eq'ing it is a legitimate way to mix and can yield a VERY convincing center image. It is also possible to multi mike and still get full imaging.

I think it is a huge mistake to always blame the lack of imaging on the mixing or recording itself. 95% of the time its the duplication process the introduces data errors or drop outs. I know I have sent mixes after mastering to the duplicator, and when it returned the sound was noticeably degraded.

[JoeE SP9]

No amount of manipultion with a mixing board or any type of electronic device can be called imaging.I mentioned a specific recording (Jacintha: Here's To Ben) because this recording done direct to two track easily demonstrates true imaging. In this recording even a modest rig will easily show imaging. There is the sense of a room full of musicians in around and behind the speakers. Using a DSP to turn this recording into multi channel only ruins the imaging. Spreading the instruments from left to right or beyond is only a small part of true imaging. One of the reasons this recording has such good imaging is that no one was allowed to get near the recording with a mixing board and do any post recording tweaking. Direct to two tracks assures this. Recordings of this caliber should be required listening for all those folks who love mixing boards, overdubbing and multi tracking. I'm not necessarily against any of those things. It's just that most of the time the alive-ness that should be there in the music gets mixed right out of it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

No amount of manipultion with a mixing board or any type of electronic device can be called imaging.I mentioned a specific recording (Jacintha: Here's To Ben) because this recording done direct to two track easily demonstrates true imaging. In this recording even a modest rig will easily show imaging. There is the sense of a room full of musicians in around and behind the speakers. Using a DSP to turn this recording into multi channel only ruins the imaging. Spreading the instruments from left to right or beyond is only a small part of true imaging. One of the reasons this recording has such good imaging is that no one was allowed to get near the recording with a mixing board and do any post recording tweaking. Direct to two tracks assures this. Recordings of this caliber should be required listening for all those folks who love mixing boards, overdubbing and multi tracking. I'm not necessarily against any of those things. It's just that most of the time the alive-ness that should be there in the music gets mixed right out of it.

Joe, imaging is imaging. If the instruments occupy a certain place within the mix that can easily be discerned, it is imaging. Whether it is panned in place or recorded acoustically with a phased or time arrival offset to the microphone it is called imaging.

Since this recording that you mention has not been repurposed for multichannel, you don't really know that imaging would be ruined by the process. No one would really know until it is done. I have done many recordings where I have panned voices into position, and you would never know I did it. It is about the quality and attention to detail, not about the technology per say. Any engineer worth his salt can pan a voice or instrument into place without sounding artifical.

[JoeE SP9]

Joe, imaging is imaging. If the instruments occupy a certain place within the mix that can easily be discerned, it is imaging. Whether it is panned in place or recorded acoustically with a phased or time arrival offset to the microphone it is called imaging.

Since this recording that you mention has not been repurposed for multichannel, you don't really know that imaging would be ruined by the process. No one would really know until it is done. I have done many recordings where I have panned voices into position, and you would never know I did it. It is about the quality and attention to detail, not about the technology per say. Any engineer worth his salt can pan a voice or instrument into place without sounding artifical.All the panning in the world can only do one thing. Move the apparant position from left to right. Imaging is much more than that. If you don't want to listen to Jacintha I recommend almost any Chesky title. Imaging is demonstrated quite well in their recordings. Without depth you have nothing more than cardboard cut outs in a flat plane. With my rig it is quite easy to tell when an image has been panned into position. A prime example of this is a Natalie Cole recording I have where I get a mental picture of her in a sound isolation booth holding headphones to one ear and singing into a mike with a pop guard. Incidentally one of the reasons direct to disc recordings are so popular with us old guys is because of the imaging. With direct to disc there can be no mixing or processing after the recording.

[E-Stat]

There is no such thing as "artificial fill". Panning a vocal center, and eq'ing it is a legitimate way to mix and can yield a VERY convincing center image.
I would have to agree that the very nature of panning is artificial, convincing or not. The centered image is only there because you put it there. Similarly fore-aft artist placement requires careful level settings and uniformly applied reverb. "Apparent" stage position is determined by such post performance knob twiddling otherwise you'd get flat mono with all the instruments equally stretched across front stage.

I'm not criticizing the craft, nor suggesting that one should limit themselves only to natural recordings that are recorded with no need for chair moving afterwards. It is a master engineer whose expertise results in a natural sounding artifice. The difference is that guys like Jack Fenner at Telarc do most of the work up front, not afterwards. The bassoonist starts off right rear behind the celli. The most holographic recordings in my experience are exclusively minimally miked, be they from Sheffied, Windham Hill, Telarc, Mercury, Reference Recordings, Everest, and others. GAF viewers get the incredible depth via two shots of the same image with the lenses separated laterally. Sound familiar?


It is also possible to multi mike and still get full imaging.
I'm not what you mean by "full imaging"


I think it is a huge mistake to always blame the lack of imaging on the mixing or recording itself. 95% of the time its the duplication process the introduces data errors or drop outs.
Point well taken with all digital transfer processes, including playback.

rw

[sam9]

My view point has departed from the idea of "realistic reproduction" being an ultimate goal. The idea is based on the notion that the performance can and should be a life-like reproduction of the live performance. After 40 years of serious music listening I've moved away from that. In that older concept the live performance was the artistic work and the recording was a technologically record of the event.

I have come to the belief that a live performance is one kind of artistic creation while a recording (I would prefer a different word) is another in it's own right. The decisions of the recording engineers are not just "technical" -- they are esthetic and artistic. These folks are as much a part of the artistic team as the musicians. The final artistic work is not just what happens at the recoding site. It is the end product -- the CD (or LP, or tape, or SACD etc.) or rather it's contents.

Where does that leave imaging? I say it should not be evaluated by the impact on the listener. Does it distract negetively from the intended artistic result (intended by the artistic team)? Or is it consistent with that intent? Etc. Keep in mind that it may be the intent that the imaging reflect the experience of sitting in a concert hall. Or it may not. Either is potentially vald. Whether intented impact is sucessful or pleasing is another mater.

[BrentMcGhee]

There is no such thing as artificial imaging. Just becasue during the mixing process the sound engineer moved certain instruments or vocals dead center with a slider does not mean that it will show up like then when played back. I can not tell you how many systems i have heard that instead of hearing a dead center image i can easily trace it back to the two individual front and left speakers. take for instace your car, absolultey zero imaging, even on musical peices that when you play them at home have a beautifil center image. That is one of the many reasons why i am really not a big fan of car audio at all.

How well the image is portrayed is only influenced by your speakers and there positiong within your room and your listning posistion. You can get a dead center image with a properly set up pair of speakers whether it was mixed like that or not. When an engineer creates a center image it is becasue he deemed that particular peice of the music to be dead center, but you can still get a dead center image with things that were not mixed into center with a slider. If a pair of properly set up speakers are both playing the same vocal or intrument then it will appear center.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

All the panning in the world can only do one thing. Move the apparant position from left to right. Imaging is much more than that.

Imaging is nothing more than a instruments position in the soundfield. That includes left right position and its depth. Its nothing more than that.






If you don't want to listen to Jacintha I recommend almost any Chesky title. Imaging is demonstrated quite well in their recordings. Without depth you have nothing more than cardboard cut outs in a flat plane.

This is a rather obvious point



With my rig it is quite easy to tell when an image has been panned into position. A prime example of this is a Natalie Cole recording I have where I get a mental picture of her in a sound isolation booth holding headphones to one ear and singing into a mike with a pop guard. Incidentally one of the reasons direct to disc recordings are so popular with us old guys is because of the imaging. With direct to disc there can be no mixing or processing after the recording.

Whether a signal has been acoustically recorded with its imaging intact, or electronically panned, it depends on the quality of the work done. Your example is of a studio recording which would not have any natural imaging anyway. All studio recording(unless live) are tracks which are sewn together to make a package. There is nothing naturally acoustic about them except the instrument being recorded. There is no natural soundstage or soundfield.

I have done many a LIVE gospel or jazz recording where instruments have been carefully panned into place preserving their natural placement complete with depth of field. You cannot tell whether it has panned, or acoustical imaging, not even on a $40,000 speaker system in a studio with VERY tight control on acoustics. It is all about the quality of the work, not about about the processing applied. Post production processing has gotten so good these days, that it is impossible to tell acoustic from electronic when it is used correctly. Direct to disc recording is no guarantee of audio perfection. Whether you use a mixing board, panning, or DSP processing in post, in the end it is the quality of the work and not the lack of technology that is going to make the audio sound good.

[hermanv]

Imaging is nothing more than a instruments position in the soundfield. That includes left right position and its depth. Its nothing more than that.
I have absolutely nothing against artistry whether it is the performer or the sound engineer, it is possible to create an enhanced musical experience with skillful manipulation of equipment.

However having said that: a true image includes echoes and reverberation from at least the back wall but in most cases many walls. Recording someone in a sound booth and then using electronics to place the apparent sound source location in a left right and front back plane does not create an image. It will be a two dimensional facsimile of an image, even adding some reverberation delays will blur that facsimile but it will be no more real than photographing actors against a blue screen and adding a phony background later. At some point the audience is likely recognize the artificial nature of what they're being sold.

It may still be enjoyable or entertaining, but it's not the real thing, sometimes this may improve the end result but in many cases it suffers for it.

My original post was intended to warn the thread originator StateDJ85 not to use these artificially imaged recordings to set up his sound system with regards to speaker placement. I still feel that correct set-up is far more likely to be accomplished with recordings that haven't been "improved" by the sound engineer.

[kexodusc]

I have absolutely nothing against artistry whether it is the performer or the sound engineer, it is possible to create an enhanced musical experience with skillful manipulation of equipment.

However having said that: a true image includes echoes and reverberation from at least the back wall but in most cases many walls. Recording someone in a sound booth and then using electronics to place the apparent sound source location in a left right and front back plane does not create an image. It will be a two dimensional facsimile of an image, even adding some reverberation delays will blur that facsimile but it will be no more real than photographing actors against a blue screen and adding a phony background later. At some point the audience is likely recognize the artificial nature of what they're being sold.

It may still be enjoyable or entertaining, but it's not the real thing, sometimes this may improve the end result but in many cases it suffers for it.

My original post was intended to warn the thread originator StateDJ85 not to use these artificially imaged recordings to set up his sound system with regards to speaker placement. I still feel that correct set-up is far more likely to be accomplished with recordings that haven't been "improved" by the sound engineer.

This is a very conservative way of looking at it. IMO, most recorded music can sound far superior to the live presentation. Why? We're seeing more and artist step out of the stale, primitive, decades old belief that stereo recording are limited to trying to mimick a live peformance. What if the artistic vision of the album is such that a live venue could never deliver it?

Live recordings without alteration make perfection impossible to achieve. Studio work can accomplish this. Because so much musical information is lost when recording live (the reverbrations and echos are rarely captured accurately), it's easy to see why studio recordings can be preferable.

The one aspect live recordings sometime deliver is the intangible "energy" of the performance, drawing from the crowd and so forth. But a motivated musician in "the zone" in a studio can easily match this.

[gonefishin]

I would have to agree that the very nature of panning is artificial, convincing or not.



Hi E-Stat. I would agree that the nature of panning is artificial, no matter if convincing or not. But the whole idea of audio REproduction is artifial as well. Nothing, other than the actual event is true to itself...leaving the entire recording process up to the engineer. How skillful the engineer is with the materials given to him/her, will determin if you are offered an artificial reproduction of the event that lives up to the quality to perhaps be called...good.

Even a live recording is an artificail event that's quality is in the hands of how skilled the enginner may be. Simply by choosing the numbers of mic's...mic positioning and so forth the engineer has layed his artistic view onto the live recording.

perhaps there are just different ways to look at this. Either way...that's my view







I have absolutely nothing against artistry whether it is the performer or the sound engineer, it is possible to create an enhanced musical experience with skillful manipulation of equipment.


Hi hermanv,

Like I said above...no matter if the recording is a live concert, a live studio recording or a sperated studio recording the final recording is still determined by the artistry of the engineer and the equipment used. So, in a sense...all recorded music is is an enhanced musical experience.

But don't forget to factor in your hand in the outcome. The equipment you by nd the room you put it in will all distort the recording from the final artistry that the engineer/media has created.

happy listening>>>>>>>>



dan

[sam9]

In some instances, I find synthetic (I like this better than "artificial") imaging separates individual voices and instuments to a degree that the listener can appreciate the individual elements of the performance to greater degree than if we were actually there.

As far as echos and reverberations go -- what about open air concerts. I used to attend summer concerts of the Philadelphia Orch. in Saratoga Springs. The was a band shell but certainly no side or back walls. Also no imaging aty least from where I set. (Actually there was imaging -- one big mush like from a single large mono speaker.) Still the performances were much enjoyed. Realistic imaging for some one who can't afford center orchestra seats is quite different from those who can.

On another, much more recent, ocassion I attended the Stones "Vodoo Lounge" performance in the Oakland coliseum. This was a live performance, but the sound was mixed, EQ'd and otherwise processed at least or even more extensively than the same songs were in their original studio version. So where does that leave us, exect sitting amidst even more ambiguity regarding artificial vs. real.

[E-Stat]

Hi E-Stat. I would agree that the nature of panning is artificial, no matter if convincing or not. But the whole idea of audio REproduction is artifial as well.
Perhaps you should have responded to STtT's comment where he suggested otherwise.


Even a live recording is an artificail event that's quality is in the hands of how skilled the enginner may be. Simply by choosing the numbers of mic's...mic positioning and so forth the engineer has layed his artistic view onto the live recording.
Agreed. Yet I find the realism depicted by cardboard boats on a painted sky significantly less good than those recorded in a true stereoscopic fashion demonstrating relational depth.

rw

[hermanv]

Often, the addition of silcone to one gender looks better, but not allways

Sorry, cheap shot :D

The orignal question was something like "how do I acheive the best imaging (in my room, was implied)" Since the reproduction environment will interact with the recording to make this harder than it looks, I don't think that questions about absolute sound or accuracy really apply.

Because it's harder than it might seem, I am stubbornly sticking with my belief that non-enhanced, non spatially modified recordings are the best shot at acheiving a good speaker placement compromise.

I say compromise because most of us do not own dedicated rooms. We have to co-exist with the other members of the family. Additionally we have rooms that are most likely smaller than the recording venue. So I agree that both gonefishing (Hi yourself) and sam9's (Hi to you too) points that an exact result is effectively impossible are correct.

[Woochifer]

This is a very conservative way of looking at it. IMO, most recorded music can sound far superior to the live presentation. Why? We're seeing more and artist step out of the stale, primitive, decades old belief that stereo recording are limited to trying to mimick a live peformance. What if the artistic vision of the album is such that a live venue could never deliver it?

Live recordings without alteration make perfection impossible to achieve. Studio work can accomplish this. Because so much musical information is lost when recording live (the reverbrations and echos are rarely captured accurately), it's easy to see why studio recordings can be preferable.

The one aspect live recordings sometime deliver is the intangible "energy" of the performance, drawing from the crowd and so forth. But a motivated musician in "the zone" in a studio can easily match this.

Boy did you ever get that right! The whole notion that the quality of a recording and its imaging properties depends solely on how well it mimics a live performance is incredibly outdated, and ignores the huge variety of sounds and musical experiences that studio recordings can produce. I'm in agreement with Sir Terrence that imaging is about audibly placing the location of a sound within a soundfield. And in that endeavor, properly speaker placement is oh so important.

A general rule of thumb is that the speakers should be no more than 60 degrees apart before the center image becomes unstable. Multichannel setups are more tolerant of wider angle front speaker placements because of the center speaker, but the surround speakers should be no more than 110 to 120 degrees off-center.

Albums like Dark Side of the Moon and The Final Cut from Pink Floyd layer environmental sounds with the instrumentation in a way that simply sounds unlike anything that can possibly be produced live on a static stage. In the context of limiting the entire audiophile universe to reproducing live concert hall experiences, does this therefore mean that recordings that cannot produce "true" imaging are therefore also not "true" music? It sure seems like that's the view that a lot of audiophiles are trying to convey in an underhand way.

And even accepting that live performance reproduction is the ultimate goal, two-channel is hardly adequate to achieve that goal. If "true" imaging is about conveying depth, then two-channel has got holes galore, because it cannot convey the back soundfield nor adequately provide a solid and stable side image. Whenever I'm in a concert hall, the sound is an all enveloping experience. Even with the best recordings from Telarc, Shefield, Chesky, etc. played back on well placed high end systems, the reproduction falls far short of creating the all-encompassing imaging that you get inside an acoustically tuned concert hall, or even a local club. The best two-channel reproduction can convincingly convey much of the dynamics, the scale, and the tones of a live performance, but it falls short with the imaging and the depth perception.

A simple comparison between the two-channel and multichannel versions of Chesky's Swing Live recording provides a good contrast in how imaging and depth greatly expand with the addition of surround channels. The two-channel recording is superb, with a very well recorded front soundfield and good imaging. But, with the multichannel version, the side imaging is solid and stable, and with that in place, the depth is far more palpable and convincing, and the width of the perceived soundfield expands greatly. This same disc also has a 6.0 version that makes use of high mounted speakers to convey a sense of height.

[E-Stat]

In the context of limiting the entire audiophile universe to reproducing live concert hall experiences, does this therefore mean that recordings that cannot produce "true" imaging are therefore also not "true" music?
Why do you say that? While electronically reinforced music is still music, if offers zero in the way of presenting anything in the way of natural depth.


The best two-channel reproduction can convincingly convey much of the dynamics, the scale, and the tones of a live performance, but it falls short with the imaging and the depth perception.
It would seem that you haven't heard the same systems Hermanv, Joe E SP9, and I have.


A simple comparison between the two-channel and multichannel versions of Chesky's Swing Live recording provides a good contrast in how imaging and depth greatly expand with the addition of surround channels.
And I suspect that neither version is a close miked 32 track mix down.

rw

[Woochifer]

Why do you say that? While electronically reinforced music is still music, if offers zero in the way of presenting anything in the way of natural depth.

"Natural" depth? Probably, but like my point mentioned, the whole purpose of so many well produced recordings nowadays is to introduce an experience that goes beyond what occurs naturally. To think of the performance in three-dimensions rather than strictly in terms of the "seventh row center" perspective. And the best studio recordings are hardly the audio equivalent of the cardboard cutouts that you alluded to earlier.


It would seem that you haven't heard the same systems Hermanv, Joe E SP9, and I have.

And you probably have not visited the same concert halls and club venues that I have. (You don't know what I've actually listened to over the years, so you can't presume whether or not I've heard the same systems that you have) Compared to what I experience live, no two-channel listening in my 20+ years in this hobby can adequately render the imaging and the actual depth of the live performance. With a good multichannel recording and a matched speaker setup in the ITU 5.1 reference configuration, the imaging and depth perception facets of the live performance are rendered in a way that blows away anything that I've ever heard in two-channel. With a 5.1 setup with amplification and speakers that are up to the quality of the best two-channel setups I've ever heard, I would expect that the sense of scale, dynamic impact, and tonal accuracy would follow suit.


And I suspect that neither version is a close miked 32 track mix down.

They weren't and that's the point. If "natural" depth and "true" imaging are viewed solely in the context of reproducing a live performance, then in that demo, the two-channel version simply falls short compared to the multichannel version. Since people are talking about "true" imaging and "natural" depth with stereo recordings, I'm simply pointing out the need for more than two channels to actually come closer to achieving those goals.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Boy did you ever get that right! The whole notion that the quality of a recording and its imaging properties depends solely on how well it mimics a live performance is incredibly outdated, and ignores the huge variety of sounds and musical experiences that studio recordings can produce. I'm in agreement with Sir Terrence that imaging is about audibly placing the location of a sound within a soundfield. And in that endeavor, properly speaker placement is oh so important.

A general rule of thumb is that the speakers should be no more than 60 degrees apart before the center image becomes unstable. Multichannel setups are more tolerant of wider angle front speaker placements because of the center speaker, but the surround speakers should be no more than 110 to 120 degrees off-center.

Albums like Dark Side of the Moon and The Final Cut from Pink Floyd layer environmental sounds with the instrumentation in a way that simply sounds unlike anything that can possibly be produced live on a static stage. In the context of limiting the entire audiophile universe to reproducing live concert hall experiences, does this therefore mean that recordings that cannot produce "true" imaging are therefore also not "true" music? It sure seems like that's the view that a lot of audiophiles are trying to convey in an underhand way.

And even accepting that live performance reproduction is the ultimate goal, two-channel is hardly adequate to achieve that goal. If "true" imaging is about conveying depth, then two-channel has got holes galore, because it cannot convey the back soundfield nor adequately provide a solid and stable side image. Whenever I'm in a concert hall, the sound is an all enveloping experience. Even with the best recordings from Telarc, Shefield, Chesky, etc. played back on well placed high end systems, the reproduction falls far short of creating the all-encompassing imaging that you get inside an acoustically tuned concert hall, or even a local club. The best two-channel reproduction can convincingly convey much of the dynamics, the scale, and the tones of a live performance, but it falls short with the imaging and the depth perception.

A simple comparison between the two-channel and multichannel versions of Chesky's Swing Live recording provides a good contrast in how imaging and depth greatly expand with the addition of surround channels. The two-channel recording is superb, with a very well recorded front soundfield and good imaging. But, with the multichannel version, the side imaging is solid and stable, and with that in place, the depth is far more palpable and convincing, and the width of the perceived soundfield expands greatly. This same disc also has a 6.0 version that makes use of high mounted speakers to convey a sense of height.

I am always amazed at how like minded we are about sooooooo many things audio.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think the language that many of you guys are using is not doing much justice to the understanding of the recording process. Live recordings are not "artificial" at all. They are a approximation of the live event.

As far as a recordings capturing back wall, side wall, and rear walls, This is a hit and miss in real recording halls. Everything depends on the distance the mikes are from the walls, what is between the mikes and the walls(audience, ornaments, orchestra, seats etc) how the sounds will radiate when reflected by the walls. It also depends on how high the mikes are placed over the orchestra and vocalist, and what type of mikes they are.


Because it's harder than it might seem, I am stubbornly sticking with my belief that non-enhanced, non spatially modified recordings are the best shot at acheiving a good speaker placement compromise.

There is just no evidence that this is true.


And I suspect that neither version is a close miked 32 track mix down.

A 32 track close miked mixdown can have just as good imaging as a direct to disc. It takes a little more work in pre-production to do, but it can be done and is done all the time(recording film scores). Just listen to any film score recorded by Shawn Murphy and you will hear exactly what I mean.

[hermanv]

I said: "Because it's harder than it might seem, I am stubbornly sticking with my belief that non-enhanced, non spatially modified recordings are the best shot at acheiving a good speaker placement compromise."

There is just no evidence that this is true.
I guess it matters what you mean by evidence. To me, common sense says that if I am listening to an artificial placement of a vocalist then how do I know my speaker set up is correct? The problem is nuch the same as trying to hear distortion on your amplifier while it is playing an electronic guitar recorded with a Fuzz box, your ears are incapable of seperating near end from far end distortion.

By adjusting your speakers you can move the apparent location of the lead vocalist to a number of places on the stage. If the recording engineer has also moved the lead vocalist around you have no way to tell which of you got it wrong. I know the previous is over simplified, but the inherent problem is; you must use a known good source to evaluate equipment.

Garbage in, garbage out.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I guess it matters what you mean by evidence. To me, common sense says that if I am listening to an artificial placement of a vocalist then how do I know my speaker set up is correct?

Here is were I think you are missing a huge point. It is very difficult to have a vocalist centered naturally without panning. If you try and record using two microphones to "center" the vocalist naturally, you run into bleeding, or phasing issues. And if the vocalist moves too close to one of the microphones, then the image will wonder between channels. If the vocalist is panned correctly, then it will be centered correctly and you will know that your speaker is correctly setup. A center vocalist is nothing more than a signal that is playing in both channels with equal amplitude and phase. That can be done acoustically or electronically with equal results.



The problem is nuch the same as trying to hear distortion on your amplifier while it is playing an electronic guitar recorded with a Fuzz box, your ears are incapable of seperating near end from far end distortion.

That is easy, don't use a guitar with fuzz to try in identify distortion in the amp. Use something else!


By adjusting your speakers you can move the apparent location of the lead vocalist to a number of places on the stage. If the recording engineer has also moved the lead vocalist around you have no way to tell which of you got it wrong. I know the previous is over simplified, but the inherent problem is; you must use a known good source to evaluate equipment.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Well you actually cannot do that. If you move the left speaker far enough away from the right one the sound will break apart. Even if the recording engineer panned the vocalist slightly off center, the mastering engineer can fix it. A recording engineer who has his lead vocalist moving all over the soundfield is incompetent. That is not the problem of the technology, but the person using it.

Very few of us have access to the master tape, so how do you know what is pristine source and what is not?

[sam9]

"I guess it matters what you mean by evidence. To me, common sense says that if I am listening to an artificial placement of a vocalist then how do I know my speaker set up is correct?"

Seems to me you don't know that in any case unless you were physically present to witness the recoded performance. If this is important to you, use a test disc (I think Sterophile sells one?) that has one or more tracks for this purpose along with specific instructions on how to use them.

[hermanv]

That is easy, don't use a guitar with fuzz to try in identify distortion in the amp. Use something else! Exactly! Don't use an artificially imaged source, use something else.

The vocalist example was an attempt to illustrate my point, setting up your speakers with a single and centered vocalist probably won't get you there. On my system getting stuff in the middle is easy, it's the width, height and depth of the sound stage that takes all the work.

Plenty of well imaged live recordings exist to be used in the sound stage/imaging set up task. I can't seem to find any value in using a questionable source.

I suppose we are destined to just disagree on this. Let's tackle something simple like cables or ABX testing. :D

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Exactly! Don't use an artificially imaged source, use something else.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The point I was trying to make to you is that ALL recorded vocals that end up as a center image were panned there. It is impossible without introducing all kinds of recording problems to naturally place a vocalist in the center naturally. Recorded music without vocals it is simple.



The vocalist example was an attempt to illustrate my point, setting up your speakers with a single and centered vocalist probably won't get you there. On my system getting stuff in the middle is easy, it's the width, height and depth of the sound stage that takes all the work.

Yes it's easy, all you have to do is sit equidistantly between your two speakers, and puff anything with equal amplitude and phase will sit exactly in between the speakers. The rest of the soundfield is left up to the acoustical nature of your listening room.


Plenty of well imaged live recordings exist to be used in the sound stage/imaging set up task. I can't seem to find any value in using a questionable source.

It is not adviseable to use any dynamic source to set up your speakers correctly, that is why they have tape measures, test disc's and SPL meters. Also their is plenty of written instruction on how to correctly place speakers. Using music to do that task will leave you with ton's of spatial errors that are not related to the sources you are using.


I suppose we are destined to just disagree on this. Let's tackle something simple like cables or ABX testing. :D

Many of your guys that go on these diatribes about the evils of processing and panning are arm chair recording engineers. You have never recorded anything, and therefore do not know the difficulties and problems associated with live recording. You get these grand ideas of how it should be done, but have no idea that many of these ideas will fail in the field.

Chesky can afford to do mininalist miking because they don't use it on live recordings that include vocalists. Direct to disc only works if you have muscians who can play perfectly, or conductors who know how to balance their orchestras, or singers who are flawless in recording venues that are perfect. Rarely do these scenarios line up, so most all recordings require post production. I have been recording audio for going on 22 years, and in those 22 years I have been in all kinds of venues recording all kinds of music with all kinds of artist, and I have only met a handful that could pull off a direct to disc recording. Live to disc is VERY expensive to do, and many record companies(especially today) will not lend financial support if the project doesn't make their money back. The only type of music that could support this type of investment is pop, rock, and gospel, and often the talent in these fields of music are not up to snuff to record direct to disc.

Back in the day many record companies didn't mind making this kind of investment and therefore there were more releases done direct to disc. These days fewer and fewer are being made because of the economical scale of investment and return.

[E-Stat]

A 32 track close miked mixdown can have just as good imaging as a direct to disc.
We must have a different perception of imaging and will just disagree here.

rw

[E-Stat]

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The point I was trying to make to you is that ALL recorded vocals that end up as a center image were panned there.
Good point regarding simplistic images. Listen to any one of a dozen or more Telarc recordings with choral content that truly places the sopranos to the left and the basses to the right. They do NOT achieve this with panning. They don't need to.

rw

[hermanv]

There are many recordings known to the audiophile community that are regarded as imaging well, I just recommend using them. Jeez.

I have little interest in recording, no one recommended recording your own imaging disk, sorry Terence you are being a bit nuts on this. Trees, trees everywhere and nary a forest to be found.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Good point regarding simplistic images. Listen to any one of a dozen or more Telarc recordings with choral content that truly places the sopranos to the left and the basses to the right. They do NOT achieve this with panning. They don't need to.

rw

E stat, unless the engineer sends each microphone feed directly to disc, every signal that has a left/right perspective uses panning to get there. Almost every recording uses mixers. Each input has a channel coming to the board. Until a pan pot is tilted in any direction, each input has no directional ques whatsoever. Even if you use minimalist microphone techniques such as spaced omni setups, each input to the board has to be assigned a direction through the use of pan pots.

When I record either symphonies or film scores, I use a Decca Tree setup of ribbon micrphones, and a set of spaced omni's to pickup the hall reverberation(if its acoustics are very good). A Decca tree setup consist of three microphones on a long pole facing different directions(if you use a clock one mike is at the ten o clock position, another at twelve, and the other at two o clock) representing the Left channel, center, and right channels. A pan pot must be used to restore direction when each of these channel reaches the mixing board. The only way to get around using pan pot's is to record two channel only(two microphones only) and assign each input channel a left right distinction straight to disc. Nobody records like that, and that has never been a widely implemented way of recording. You have absolutely no control whatsoever. Some one screws up, you have just messed up the recording. So all of the talk of "artifical" or negative talk of panning images into place is just plain foolishness. Everything in recording is panned through the use of pan pots. What do people think, that your just record and the images jump in their place? LOL.

Whether you record stereo, three channel, 5.1 or 6.1, you have to use panning either in the recording process, or in post production. Almost nobody records using only two microphones, unless a series of perfect conditions come together at one time(best acoustics, perfect musicians, perfect balance, perfect articulation and style). 98% percent of all recordings use panning techniques originating from a mixing board. This is why I said that using words with negative connotations such as "artifical", " unnatural" when discussing pan pots used in assigning direction is just plain crazy.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

We must have a different perception of imaging and will just disagree here.

rw

Can you clue me in to your perception? I can probably tell you just how to accomplish excellent lateral imaging complete with full depth of perspective with 32 channels. It more complicated, but its has been done over over again.

[JoeE SP9]

E stat, unless the engineer sends each microphone feed directly to disc, every signal that has a left/right perspective uses panning to get there. Almost every recording uses mixers. Each input has a channel coming to the board. Until a pan pot is tilted in any direction, each input has no directional ques whatsoever. Even if you use minimalist microphone techniques such as spaced omni setups, each input to the board has to be assigned a direction through the use of pan pots.

When I record either symphonies or film scores, I use a Decca Tree setup of ribbon micrphones, and a set of spaced omni's to pickup the hall reverberation(if its acoustics are very good). A Decca tree setup consist of three microphones on a long pole facing different directions(if you use a clock one mike is at the ten o clock position, another at twelve, and the other at two o clock) representing the Left channel, center, and right channels. A pan pot must be used to restore direction when each of these channel reaches the mixing board. The only way to get around using pan pot's is to record two channel only(two microphones only) and assign each input channel a left right distinction straight to disc. Nobody records like that, and that has never been a widely implemented way of recording. You have absolutely no control whatsoever. Some one screws up, you have just messed up the recording. So all of the talk of "artifical" or negative talk of panning images into place is just plain foolishness. Everything in recording is panned through the use of pan pots. What do people think, that your just record and the images jump in their place? LOL.

Whether you record stereo, three channel, 5.1 or 6.1, you have to use panning either in the recording process, or in post production. Almost nobody records using only two microphones, unless a series of perfect conditions come together at one time(best acoustics, perfect musicians, perfect balance, perfect articulation and style). 98% percent of all recordings use panning techniques originating from a mixing board. This is why I said that using words with negative connotations such as "artifical", " unnatural" when discussing pan pots used in assigning direction is just plain crazy.
What you are saying may be true for the recordings you make. In the 30+ years I have been involved with audio both on the recording end and on the listening end the best (most natural sounding) recordings are the ones that have the least amount of processing. Those same recordings were all recorded with minimal miking. As I mentioned in previous posts direct to disc LP's and the few direct to 2 track CD's that are in my collection are the recordings that exhibit true imaging. Studio recordings have plenty of left to right panning but no imaging; as in depth. When a source has been artifically panned to a specific horizontal position in a mix it is not all that difficult to hear it in the results. Another good example of this is Way Out West which has none of the panning and processing. The Jacintha CD I mentioned previously has none of the panning and processing that degrades fidelity. Maybe we need more old time musicians who can do their thing without multiple overdubs and studio help. I may have opened up a new can of worms with my comment about musicians who need overdubbing and studio "magic" to make music.

[Woochifer]

Here is were I think you are missing a huge point. It is very difficult to have a vocalist centered naturally without panning. If you try and record using two microphones to "center" the vocalist naturally, you run into bleeding, or phasing issues. And if the vocalist moves too close to one of the microphones, then the image will wonder between channels. If the vocalist is panned correctly, then it will be centered correctly and you will know that your speaker is correctly setup. A center vocalist is nothing more than a signal that is playing in both channels with equal amplitude and phase. That can be done acoustically or electronically with equal results.

I think a good example of this is the San Francisco Symphony's 1990 recording of Orff's Carmina Burana. I've seen the SF Symphony perform that piece numerous times at Davies Symphony Hall and sat in very different locations each time (sitting in the center orchestra section with a chorus of 300 bellowing out the first two bars of O'Fortuna is a divine experience to say the least!). That recording has some of most vividly recorded vocals I've ever heard, but it's far more anchored to the center than anything I heard inside the actual concert hall where it was recorded. Consider that during the live performance, the soloist is amplified through a high mounted monitor and the placement of the vocal sounds inside the concert hall is diffuse. That's certainly not the type of sound that I'd want the recording to mimic.

Comparing what I heard live versus how the recording was done, it's pretty obvious that the vocals were panned during post-production, and the results IMO speak for themselves. As such, the recording presents the vocalist up front and solidly anchored to the center, which is not how I hear it inside the concert hall, but I still find preferable because it gives much greater clarity to the vocal soloists and provides better depth perception to that aspect of the performance than what I heard live. This is one of the test discs that I use when evaluating the imaging because the center image is well anchored as if the vocalist was standing in front of you with the orchestra and chorus a few feet behind. Of course, this is not how the vocalist sounds from an audience perspective inside Davies Symphony Hall, so I guess it counts as artificial!


Chesky can afford to do mininalist miking because they don't use it on live recordings that include vocalists. Direct to disc only works if you have muscians who can play perfectly, or conductors who know how to balance their orchestras, or singers who are flawless in recording venues that are perfect. Rarely do these scenarios line up, so most all recordings require post production. I have been recording audio for going on 22 years, and in those 22 years I have been in all kinds of venues recording all kinds of music with all kinds of artist, and I have only met a handful that could pull off a direct to disc recording. Live to disc is VERY expensive to do, and many record companies(especially today) will not lend financial support if the project doesn't make their money back. The only type of music that could support this type of investment is pop, rock, and gospel, and often the talent in these fields of music are not up to snuff to record direct to disc.

Back in the day many record companies didn't mind making this kind of investment and therefore there were more releases done direct to disc. These days fewer and fewer are being made because of the economical scale of investment and return.

Just because a recording was done live-to-two-track does not mean that it will automatically sound like a minimally produced acoustic recording with a perfect audience perspective. Some of Amanda McBroom's direct-to-disc recordings that I've heard don't sound all that different than other studio recordings. Make no mistake, the recording quality is stellar, but it certainly does not impart any special depth or imaging that you can't find in other well done studio recordings. Some of the recordings I've heard were not intended to sound like an acoustic performance, and they did not. Other direct discs like the Harry James Orchestra recording that Sheffield Lab did are intended to sound like live performances, and succeed big time.

I think the best direct disc recordings can sound more spontaneous, but that has more to do with the live performance aspect than anything having to do with the recording quality. One of the perils of direct to disc recording is that the performers have to record an entire album side in one take. Any flub by any of the musicians, the guy on the mixing board, or a mistake on the cutting lathe, and the entire album side gets tossed. I think that this happened during James Newton Howard's direct disc session. They supposedly had already laid down inspired and picture perfect renditions of the first songs on an album side, and in the middle of the last song on the side, somebody missed a cue and they had to throw the entire performance out and start over.

[E-Stat]

E stat, unless the engineer sends each microphone feed directly to disc, every signal that has a left/right perspective uses panning to get there.
Read again your comment to which I was responding

The point I was trying to make to you is that ALL recorded vocals that end up as a center image were panned there.

With the recordings I mentioned there is no forced "center" vocal image. It is a continuous spread from left to right just like you find the hundred folks on the risers. Yes I acknowledge there is subtle mixing involved, but not to take someone from really nowhere in an isolation booth and PUT them someplace on the stage where they never were.

rw

[E-Stat]

Can you clue me in to your perception? I can probably tell you just how to accomplish excellent lateral imaging complete with full depth of perspective with 32 channels. It more complicated, but its has been done over over again.
There is an acoustic that exists between and among the instruments in a symphony orchestra. Close mike each instrument and you get the sonic equivalent of blown up images that lose their perspective. Just like my visual analogy by taking 32 picture slides of the instruments and viewing them simultaneously. Everything's there - but with no perspective.

Jack Renner avoids that effect by not using a "cast of thousands" mike approach. As do other engineers. I met him years ago while he was recording one of the ASO performances.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

What you are saying may be true for the recordings you make.

The way I record is pretty standard practice for the industry itself. I have my ways of doing things that might be different in some areas. So to try and isolate this down to me is fruitless and much like looking through a microscope.





In the 30+ years I have been involved with audio both on the recording end and on the listening end the best (most natural sounding) recordings are the ones that have the least amount of processing.

So let me get this straight, you are a recording engineer? I think every engineer strives for the LEAST amount of processing when doing is mix




Those same recordings were all recorded with minimal miking.

Yes they may use minimal miking, but how did the instruments get a left/right perspect without panning? You have never explained that. Two mikes didn't give a left/right perspective until it is panned there.



As I mentioned in previous posts direct to disc LP's and the few direct to 2 track CD's that are in my collection are the recordings that exhibit true imaging.

There is no such thing as "true" imaging. Did any of these recording pass through a mixing board? How was this recording done, can you fully explain.




Studio recordings have plenty of left to right panning but no imaging; as in depth.

You are totally generalizing here, as you have not heard every studio recording ever made. These kinds of generalization are not helpful in a intelligent discussion of audio.




When a source has been artifically panned to a specific horizontal position in a mix it is not all that difficult to hear it in the results.

Can you support this perspective with some evidence, testing etc. Because some of your most renoun recordings have used panning via a mixing board. Panning is not artificial, it is necessary in most conditions. I think you need a new audio vocabulary.



Another good example of this is Way Out West which has none of the panning and processing.

Can you tell us how it was recorded, and how the instruments just magically get their left/right perspective?


The Jacintha CD I mentioned previously has none of the panning and processing that degrades fidelity.

Can you provide me with any testing results that support you claim that panning degrades the signal. I know of none submitted to AES for peer review. Once again, how do the instruments acheive a left/right perspective in the recording? Can you explain



Maybe we need more old time musicians who can do their thing without multiple overdubs and studio help. I may have opened up a new can of worms with my comment about musicians who need overdubbing and studio "magic" to make music.

Or perhaps we can ask the old school hobbiest to move up with the times.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

There is an acoustic that exists between and among the instruments in a symphony orchestra. Close mike each instrument and you get the sonic equivalent of blown up images that lose their perspective. Just like my visual analogy by taking 32 picture slides of the instruments and viewing them simultaneously. Everything's there - but with no perspective.

Jack Renner avoids that effect by not using a "cast of thousands" mike approach. As do other engineers. I met him years ago while he was recording one of the ASO performances.

rw

E stat, I am not advocated close miking with 32 mikes as a practice. What I am saying is that a natural perspecitve CAN be achieved using many microphones. All that is needed is a very high sample rate, some delay boxes, and a extremely talented recording engineer who knows how to balance multi inputs.

You analogy isn't quite correct. The function of our eyes and ears are quite different, and processing for each is quite different. Ears are excellent at locate things amoungst alot of noise, are eyes cannot always locate things amoung crowds.

I don't use the "cast of thousands" as a practice, but I have used quite alot of mikes during some large symphony works to cover a large orchestra and chorus with soloist to boot.

[JoeE SP9]

The way I record is pretty standard practice for the industry itself. I have my ways of doing things that might be different in some areas. So to try and isolate this down to me is fruitless and much like looking through a microscope.

No one is specifically targeting you. It is industry practice that is the target.





So let me get this straight, you are a recording engineer? I think every engineer strives for the LEAST amount of processing when doing is mix.

This is impossible when every track is laid down separately.





Yes they may use minimal miking, but how did the instruments get a left/right perspect without panning? You have never explained that. Two mikes din't give a left/right perspective until it is panned there.

Record the entire band in a room spread out as if they were on stage. Use ORTF miking as an example. Two mikes will give plenty of left right perspective.



There is no such thing as "true" imaging. Did any of these recording pass through a mixing board? How was this recording done, can you fully explain.

I have several times mentioned specific recordings. Give them a listen. One more suggestion Buddy Rich Class of 78.





You are totally generalizing here, as you have not heard every studio recording ever made. These kinds of generalization are not helpful in a intelligent discussion of audio.

No, but having played an instrument since the age of nine (now 57) done studio work in front of and behind the board and purchased records since 1966 I think I have a right to express an informed opinion.




Can you support this perspective with some evidence, testing etc. Because some of your most renoun recordings have used panning via a mixing board. Panning is not artificial, it is necessary in most conditions. I think you need a new audio vocabulary.

I never said anything about panning except that panning from left to right is not imaging.



Can you tell us how it was recorded, and how the instruments just magiacally get there left/right perspective?

See one of my previous answers.



Can you provide me with any testing results that support you claim that panning degrades the signal. I know of none submitted to AES for peer review. Once again, how do the instruments acheive a left/right perspective in the recording? Can you explain

See one of my previous answers.



Or perhaps we can ask the old school hobbiest to move up with the times.
Besides being a musician with a union card. I am a BS EE. I am hardly just an old school hobbyist.


I have spent time on both sides of the microphones. If you get all the musicians in a large room situated in a loose arrangement as if they were playing a concert use minimal miking and have them actually play together it is not diffucult to get decent imiging without all that post processing. The music itself has more life and fire when musicians have themselves to play of off. Each musician going in and laying down tracks separately is why you need all that gadgetry to make a recording. I realize the musicians are as much to blame as the engineers but most of current studio based recordings sound clean, clinical and ultimately musically uninvolving.

[hermanv]

After reading some of the precending discussions, I found this web site which helps illustrate some of the techniques in a way that at least I can understand.

http://www.tape.com/Bartlett_Articles/stereo_microphone_techniques.html

Sir Terence; in an earlier post you said that centering a sole vocalist using conventional miking (by which I assume to be A and B miking using two microphones seperated by around 6-12 feet) would be most difficult. I think I see how that could lead to trouble.

Can you or JoeE SP9 explain (assuming it can be done in a format (short) compatible with a forum) why this problem also exists for the coincident microphone techniques, especially the MS (mid-side) three mike arrangement? From looking at the drawings and reading the description one might assume that this technique would excell at centering a soloist.

[JoeE SP9]

After reading some of the precending discussions, I found this web site which helps illustrate some of the techniques in a way that at least I can understand.

http://www.tape.com/Bartlett_Articles/stereo_microphone_techniques.html

Sir Terence; in an earlier post you said that centering a sole vocalist using conventional miking (by which I assume to be A and B miking using two microphones seperated by around 6-12 feet) would be most difficult. I think I see how that could lead to trouble.

Can you or JoeE SP9 explain (assuming it can be done in a format (short) compatible with a forum) why this problem also exists for the coincident microphone techniques, especially the MS (mid-side) three mike arrangement? From looking at the drawings and reading the description one might assume that this technique would excell at centering a soloist.
I never said there was a problem. I think your assumptions are correct. Some of the greatest recordings of all time were done with three mikes and no panning or processing whatsoever. I refer to the "living presence" recordings. Recording in this manner requires that the musicians play everything in a live manner with no re or overdubbing or sweetening in the studio. http://forums.audioreview.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I never said there was a problem. I think your assumptions are correct. Some of the greatest recordings of all time were done with three mikes and no panning or processing whatsoever. I refer to the "living presence" recordings. Recording in this manner requires that the musicians play everything in a live manner with no re or overdubbing or sweetening in the studio. http://forums.audioreview.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Your are not correct, all of Mercury Living presence albums and three track tape where mixed with a mixer using pan pots to position a left/center/ and right perspective. The albums had their center channel split equally between the left and right speakers to create a solid center image. All done with pan pots.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

After reading some of the precending discussions, I found this web site which helps illustrate some of the techniques in a way that at least I can understand.

http://www.tape.com/Bartlett_Articles/stereo_microphone_techniques.html

Sir Terence; in an earlier post you said that centering a sole vocalist using conventional miking (by which I assume to be A and B miking using two microphones seperated by around 6-12 feet) would be most difficult. I think I see how that could lead to trouble.

Can you or JoeE SP9 explain (assuming it can be done in a format (short) compatible with a forum) why this problem also exists for the coincident microphone techniques, especially the MS (mid-side) three mike arrangement? From looking at the drawings and reading the description one might assume that this technique would excell at centering a soloist.

M/S mircophone arraingments are highly dependent on correct phase. If there is a wrong polarity in one channel, the M signal becomes 0 and the mono component of the signal is nulled out. If the S side is out of polarity, then you get nothing more than a L-R signal which is what ambient components are made up of(L-R is what achieves that rear channel in Dolby pro logic) This means that everything in the recording chain has to be of absolute correct phase from the microphones to the mixer or processors. A phase difference as little as 90 degrees will cause, after conversion to L/R position, a reduction of cross talk attenuation which narrows the sound stage, and displaces the sound sources in the middle of the mix. I have had this happen to me during a recording, and had to rely on a difference set of microphones to get my mix correct.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Besides being a musician with a union card. I am a BS EE. I am hardly just an old school hobbyist.


I have spent time on both sides of the microphones. If you get all the musicians in a large room situated in a loose arrangement as if they were playing a concert use minimal miking and have them actually play together it is not diffucult to get decent imiging without all that post processing. The music itself has more life and fire when musicians have themselves to play of off. Each musician going in and laying down tracks separately is why you need all that gadgetry to make a recording. I realize the musicians are as much to blame as the engineers but most of current studio based recordings sound clean, clinical and ultimately musically uninvolving.

Not really sure that a musicians union card is relevant to this discussion, I have one of those myself, and cannot see how that would benefit me in this discussion.

You still have not answered my basic question. With minimalist miking techniques, how does the musicians achieve the L/R positions in the soundfield without panning? Does it get there just because the microphones are positioned to the left and right of center? I think not. A single microphone input has no directional information, it is essentially mono. So how do you get stereo from what is essentially two mono inputs? There are no phase variance in mono information, so how are the necessary phase variances that make up a stereo soundfield get there?


If you get all the musicians in a large room situated in a loose arrangement as if they were playing a concert use minimal miking and have them actually play together it is not diffucult to get decent imiging without all that post processing

You may get excellent imaging(sometimes not though), but what about balance issues? Bleeding? Less than ideal acoustics? What if a single instrument was sticking out of the mix? What if the loose seating arraingment makes it difficult for the musicians to hear each other?(I have been in that situation a few times). A loose seating arraingment make not work for all recording situations, how do you account for that?

I am anxious to hear your response to this, feel free to be as technical as you need to, I am sure your EE degree will lend you well in your explaination.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
The way I record is pretty standard practice for the industry itself. I have my ways of doing things that might be different in some areas. So to try and isolate this down to me is fruitless and much like looking through a microscope.

No one is specifically targeting you. It is industry practice that is the target.

So what you are telling all that read this is that you know more than everybody in the industry, and your way is correct, and their is wrong? I will believe that when Surround Pro, Eq mag, or recording magazine does an interview with you on your new more informed ground breaking recording skills. (sarcasm off)








So let me get this straight, you are a recording engineer? I think every engineer strives for the LEAST amount of processing when doing is mix.

This is impossible when every track is laid down separately.

You obviously haven't done any recording recently. You would be surprised at how little tweaking goes on with a classical 5.1 mix. For stereo, you may be right, you do have to cram alot of information in a very small pipeline, but a good engineer(depending on the genre of music) does not have to process the heck out of the signal to make it sound good.






Yes they may use minimal miking, but how did the instruments get a left/right perspect without panning? You have never explained that. Two mikes din't give a left/right perspective until it is panned there.

Record the entire band in a room spread out as if they were on stage. Use ORTF miking as an example. Two mikes will give plenty of left right perspective.

How can they give a perspective without panning. You have got to use panning to not only give a left/right perspective, but the sense of depth. There is no spatial information in two mikes in a ORTF setup without panning.






There is no such thing as "true" imaging. Did any of these recording pass through a mixing board? How was this recording done, can you fully explain.

I have several times mentioned specific recordings. Give them a listen. One more suggestion Buddy Rich Class of 78.

You are spinning here, I asked for an explaination, not directions to the nearest recording. Leading me to a recording does nothing to explain the recording process on this album






You are totally generalizing here, as you have not heard every studio recording ever made. These kinds of generalization are not helpful in a intelligent discussion of audio.

No, but having played an instrument since the age of nine (now 57) done studio work in front of and behind the board and purchased records since 1966 I think I have a right to express an informed opinion.

In order to have an informed opinion you must be informed. The age you started playing an instrument tells me nothing about your experience as a RECORDING ENGINEER. I started to play the piano and organ at six, but I never knew a dang thing about recording until I was twelve and making my first demo. You have every right in the world to express your opinion, but whether that opinion is informed you have yet to present evidence that this is true.





Can you support this perspective with some evidence, testing etc. Because some of your most renoun recordings have used panning via a mixing board. Panning is not artificial, it is necessary in most conditions. I think you need a new audio vocabulary.

I never said anything about panning except that panning from left to right is not imaging.

This statement is very telling. Depth only without L/R perspective is what? Imaging is a combination of L/R perspective, and depth. Imaging can exist without depth, but it cannot without L/R perspective. In order to get both you need to pan. There is no way around it. How can you have worked BEHIND the mixing board and not know this?




Can you tell us how it was recorded, and how the instruments just magiacally get there left/right perspective?

See one of my previous answers.

You haven't answered this question in your previous answers. Can you be more specific?




Can you provide me with any testing results that support you claim that panning degrades the signal. I know of none submitted to AES for peer review. Once again, how do the instruments acheive a left/right perspective in the recording? Can you explain

See one of my previous answers.

Spin spin spin, you are not answering the question.




Or perhaps we can ask the old school hobbiest to move up with the times.

I think this is a reasonable request.

[Arturo7]

(Sorry for joining this thread so late, I've been on the road.)

For my money, Sir T's points are spot on. The inputs on a mixing board are mono. The engineer pans the signals to obtain a stereo effect. In this sense, all "imaging" is artificial.

Perhaps if you are using only two mics and each mic is going straight into the recording device, you have a chance at a "natural" image. But this technique is rare and wrought with sometimes insurmountable difficulties; i.e. balance between instruments, phase considerations, etc.. Also, as was mentioned earlier in this thread, all recording can seen as artificial.

Another point, and maybe a bit OT, I think there is a much better chance of getting a quality recording in a studio vs. live. The studio is a controlled environment and the mics and mic-pre's are usually of much higher quality that those used at a live performance. What you may not get in the studio is the spontaneity of a live performance. And you certainly won't get any audience interaction.

[JoeE SP9]

No one is specifically targeting you. It is industry practice that is the target.

So what you are telling all that read this is that you know more than everybody in the industry, and your way is correct, and their is wrong? I will believe that when Surround Pro, Eq mag, or recording magazine does an interview with you on your new more informed ground breaking recording skills. (sarcasm off)









This is impossible when every track is laid down separately.

You obviously haven't done any recording recently. You would be surprised at how little tweaking goes on with a classical 5.1 mix. For stereo, you may be right, you do have to cram alot of information in a very small pipeline, but a good engineer(depending on the genre of music) does not have to process the heck out of the signal to make it sound good.







Record the entire band in a room spread out as if they were on stage. Use ORTF miking as an example. Two mikes will give plenty of left right perspective.

How can they give a perspective without panning. You have got to use panning to not only give a left/right perspective, but the sense of depth. There is no spatial information in two mikes in a ORTF setup without panning.







I have several times mentioned specific recordings. Give them a listen. One more suggestion Buddy Rich Class of 78.

You are spinning here, I asked for an explaination, not directions to the nearest recording. Leading me to a recording does nothing to explain the recording process on this album







No, but having played an instrument since the age of nine (now 57) done studio work in front of and behind the board and purchased records since 1966 I think I have a right to express an informed opinion.

In order to have an informed opinion you must be informed. The age you started playing an instrument tells me nothing about your experience as a RECORDING ENGINEER. I started to play the piano and organ at six, but I never knew a dang thing about recording until I was twelve and making my first demo. You have every right in the world to express your opinion, but whether that opinion is informed you have yet to present evidence that this is true.






I never said anything about panning except that panning from left to right is not imaging.

This statement is very telling. Depth only without L/R perspective is what? Imaging is a combination of L/R perspective, and depth. Imaging can exist without depth, but it cannot without L/R perspective. In order to get both you need to pan. There is no way around it. How can you have worked BEHIND the mixing board and not know this?





See one of my previous answers.

You haven't answered this question in your previous answers. Can you be more specific?





See one of my previous answers.

Spin spin spin, you are not answering the question.





I think this is a reasonable request.Perhaps we have gotton away from where we started. The panning of an image from left to right is just that to me. Without an impression of depth it is like moving cardboard cutouts from side to side. Modern multitrack multimiked recordings do this very well. None of those modern recordings seem to have any depth to them. Being a practicing recording engineer has nothing to do with my criticisms of modern, overproduced, sterile, technically perfect recordings. They are kind of like KennyG. He is a very talented musician who plays crap.
As far as the Mercury recordings go, they used 3 (only 3) microphones with the center mike mixed equally to the left and right channel. If you wish to call that panning so be it. The real question is, why do those recordings sound better than current ones made with digital technology and an army of microphones? The fire and spirit that used to be a part of recorded music also seems to have gone away. Having musicians lay down tracks by themselves on different days and sometimes in different studios has removed the synergy that great music making requires. Recording a single track in isolation does not allow for any interplay between the musicians. Perhaps this is why I prefer recordings made with minimal miking and tweaking. The recordings I have mentioned have all been recorded at one time with all the musicians present. The minimal miking involved allowed the sense of depth to be preserved and reproduced. My status as a recording engineer or musician does not change the fact that modern recordings which are technically perfect and have a nice lateral spread have virtually no depth. To my ears and mind there is no imaging without depth. I don't care what the magazines say, modern recordings do not sound as good as the old ones done with fewer mikes and less multitracking. If you can't hear the difference or don't agree perhaps that's why we disagree. Being a recording engineer is not a requirement for having an opinion about the lack of depth in modern recordings. If you are aware of any please direct my ears toward some multitrack studio recordings that demonstrate some depth.http://forums.audioreview.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Perhaps we have gotton away from where we started. The panning of an image from left to right is just that to me
Without an impression of depth it is like moving cardboard cutouts from side to side.

I don't think this is the point we are debating.



Modern multitrack multimiked recordings do this very well. None of those modern recordings seem to have any depth to them. Being a practicing recording engineer has nothing to do with my criticisms of modern, overproduced, sterile, technically perfect recordings.


First, you are generalizing again. Not all mulittrack multimiked recordings lack depth, some don't, and some do. However, minimalist miking does not guarantee good imaging either. If the mikes are too far away from the performers for the sake of balancing, you get diffused imaging. If they are too close to the performers, the recording will be too "in your face". You have no room for error, and you cannot fix a thing. No producer will allow this kind of inflexibility anymore.

There is nothing wrong with technically perfect recordings. Do you really think consumers will listen and be satisfied with technically imperfect recordings?






I think I said how Mercury recording were made in a previous post, and yes they did use panning. Why do the Mercury recordings sound better than newer digital ones, well how do you compare? I have heard very good digital recordings, and I have heard very good analog recording. Whether one sounds better than the other highly depends on too many variables to mention on this type of forum.



[quote] The fire and spirit that used to be a part of recorded music also seems to have gone away. Having musicians lay down tracks by themselves on different days and sometimes in different studios has removed the synergy that great music making requires. Recording a single track in isolation does not allow for any interplay between the musicians.

Your ideas of recording baffle me. Not all recordings are done in the way you mention. Some are done in real time with various miking techniques employed. Some artists record live in the studio, some are done live while in concert, and some are done live with no audience. All kinds of microphone techniques are used, some known, and some are recording engineers own creations.


My status as a recording engineer or musician does not change the fact that modern recordings which are technically perfect and have a nice lateral spread have virtually no depth. To my ears and mind there is no imaging without depth. I don't care what the magazines say, modern recordings do not sound as good as the old ones done with fewer mikes and less multitracking.

Once again you are generalizing. I think you do this because your assertions cannot be proved. Depth in recordings have nothing to do with how many mikes are used, but how they are placed within the recording venue. You can use minimalist recording techniques and still not get satisfactory depth or lateral spread. As far as your opinion on newer recordings, you are entitled to it. But remember, its just YOUR opinion.



If you can't hear the difference or don't agree perhaps that's why we disagree. Being a recording engineer is not a requirement for having an opinion about the lack of depth in modern recordings. If you are aware of any please direct my ears toward some multitrack studio recordings that demonstrate some depth.http://forums.audioreview.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Let's leave it at I don't agree with your assertions. I never said that being a recording engineers was necessary in order to judge whether a recording has depth. My problem was with the fact that you alluded that you have experience as a recording engineer and didn't know that you have to pan images to the center. You seem to have a very limited knowledge of the recording process itself to have work as an engineer. If you have spent three seconds behind a mixing board, you would understand that panning is essential to getting not only a lateral stereo spread, but a sense of depth as well. You would also understand that one style of recording doesn't fit all situations.

[JoeE SP9]

I don't think this is the point we are debating.





First, you are generalizing again. Not all mulittrack multimiked recordings lack depth, some don't, and some do. However, minimalist miking does not guarantee good imaging either. If the mikes are too far away from the performers for the sake of balancing, you get diffused imaging. If they are too close to the performers, the recording will be too "in your face". You have no room for error, and you cannot fix a thing. No producer will allow this kind of inflexibility anymore.

There is nothing wrong with technically perfect recordings. Do you really think consumers will listen and be satisfied with technically imperfect recordings?



[quote They are kind of like KennyG. He is a very talented musician who plays crap.
As far as the Mercury recordings go, they used 3 (only 3) microphones with the center mike mixed equally to the left and right channel. If you wish to call that panning so be it. The real question is, why do those recordings sound better than current ones made with digital technology and an army of microphones?I think I said how Mercury recording were made in a previous post, and yes they did use panning. Why do the Mercury recordings sound better than newer digital ones, well how do you compare? I have heard very good digital recordings, and I have heard very good analog recording. Whether one sounds better than the other highly depends on too many variables to mention on this type of forum.





Your ideas of recording baffle me. Not all recordings are done in the way you mention. Some are done in real time with various miking techniques employed. Some artists record live in the studio, some are done live while in concert, and some are done live with no audience. All kinds of microphone techniques are used, some known, and some are recording engineers own creations.



Once again you are generalizing. I think you do this because your assertions cannot be proved. Depth in recordings have nothing to do with how many mikes are used, but how they are placed within the recording venue. You can use minimalist recording techniques and still not get satisfactory depth or lateral spread. As far as your opinion on newer recordings, you are entitled to it. But remember, its just YOUR opinion.




Let's leave it at I don't agree with your assertions. I never said that being a recording engineers was necessary in order to judge whether a recording has depth. My problem was with the fact that you alluded that you have experience as a recording engineer and didn't know that you have to pan images to the center. You seem to have a very limited knowledge of the recording process itself to have work as an engineer. If you have spent three seconds behind a mixing board, you would understand that panning is essential to getting not only a lateral stereo spread, but a sense of depth as well. You would also understand that one style of recording doesn't fit all situations.[/QUOTE]I think that what got me started was a knee jerk reaction to equating panning with imaging. To my ears panning from left to right is not imaging. I know I may be splitting hairs here but I'm an old stick in the mud. I may be so emphatic about this because so many modern recordings while showing off great expertise with pan pots show almost no depth whatsoever. I still say panning in and of itself has nothing to do with depth. The lack of depth is my complaint. It's not that I have limited knowledge, it's that I don't confuse lateral spread with depth.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think that what got me started was a knee jerk reaction to equating panning with imaging. To my ears panning from left to right is not imaging. I know I may be splitting hairs here but I'm an old stick in the mud. I may be so emphatic about this because so many modern recordings while showing off great expertise with pan pots show almost no depth whatsoever. I still say panning in and of itself has nothing to do with depth. The lack of depth is my complaint. It's not that I have limited knowledge, it's that I don't confuse lateral spread with depth.

Unfortunately Joe, left to right panning is imaging. You cannot have depth without a lateral left to right spread, but you can have a lateral right to left spread without depth. The only way to get depth is through panning. So to say that left/right spread is not imaging means that you don't think depth is either. The two work hand in hand, and cannot be seperated in the way you are trying to do. You seem to think you can acheive depth without left/right imaging, and that is not possible.

It sounds to me like you should be looking into multichannel audio for your listening enjoyment.

[JoeE SP9]

Unfortunately Joe, left to right panning is imaging. You cannot have depth without a lateral left to right spread, but you can have a lateral right to left spread without depth. The only way to get depth is through panning. So to say that left/right spread is not imaging means that you don't think depth is either. The two work hand in hand, and cannot be seperated in the way you are trying to do. You seem to think you can acheive depth without left/right imaging, and that is not possible.

It sounds to me like you should be looking into multichannel audio for your listening enjoyment. I am not now nor have I ever said you can acheive depth without left right imaging. Left right imaging is a result of left right panning. Without left right imaging you have no stereo effect.The stereo effect is a requirement for depth. Left right panning and depth are two different things. You can pan the track for an instrument all the way from the right to the left channel. Where is the depth? All you have done is move an image from side to side. You can move an instrument from side to side through out an entire selection and you will still have no depth. All you have done is move it from side to side. When I say depth I mean deep enough for sounds to appear to come from behind the wall behind your speakers. This has nothing to do with panning, which as far as I know, and you say is left to right.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I am not now nor have I ever said you can acheive depth without left right imaging. Left right imaging is a result of left right panning. Without left right imaging you have no stereo effect.The stereo effect is a requirement for depth. Left right panning and depth are two different things. You can pan the track for an instrument all the way from the right to the left channel. Where is the depth?

I don't think you are reading my posts well. I distinctly said that a single input from the mixer is mono, there is no stereo information. You can pan a single input from left to right, and it will just move left to right. I distinctly said that you must create a phase variance between TWO channels to get left/right lateral imaging and depth.





All you have done is move an image from side to side. You can move an instrument from side to side through out an entire selection and you will still have no depth. All you have done is move it from side to side. When I say depth I mean deep enough for sounds to appear to come from behind the wall behind your speakers. This has nothing to do with panning, which as far as I know, and you say is left to right.

You are just plain WRONG here. You cannot have depth without panning PERIOD. Depth cannot exist without a left/right spread, and the left/right spread is acheived through panning. I cannot believe you say that you have experience behind the board and do not know this.

How do you get depth from a mono signal?
How do you acheive image depth without a stereo spread?

Please don't spin and give me a straight answer . Thanks

[JoeE SP9]

I don't think you are reading my posts well. I distinctly said that a single input from the mixer is mono, there is no stereo information. You can pan a single input from left to right, and it will just move left to right. I distinctly said that you must create a phase variance between TWO channels to get left/right lateral imaging and depth.






You are just plain WRONG here. You cannot have depth without panning PERIOD. Depth cannot exist without a left/right spread, and the left/right spread is acheived through panning. I cannot believe you say that you have experience behind the board and do not know this.

How do you get depth from a mono signal?
How do you acheive image depth without a stereo spread?

Please don't spin and give me a straight answer . Thanks

No one said anything about a mono signal.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxDRUMMERxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





xxxxxxxxxxxxxxGUITAR PLAYERxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxBassPLAYERrxxxxxxxxxxx








xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxLEFT MIKExxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxRIGHT MIKExxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




I realize that this is a crude diagram. This is a view from the ceiling. For simplicity we will assume the mikes are pointed straight ahead. If you do nothing more than record to 2 channels with this setup you will get depth. No panning is necessary. No further signal processing is necessary or needed. Of course this requires all three musicians to be there and play/record simultaneously.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

No one said anything about a mono signal.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxDRUMMERxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





xxxxxxxxxxxxxxGUITAR PLAYERxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxBassPLAYERrxxxxxxxxxxx








xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxLEFT MIKExxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxRIGHT MIKExxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




I realize that this is a crude diagram. This is a view from the ceiling. For simplicity we will assume the mikes are pointed straight ahead. If you do nothing more than record to 2 channels with this setup you will get depth. No panning is necessary. No further signal processing is necessary or needed. Of course this requires all three musicians to be there and play/record simultaneously.

This setup will not work in every situation. The acoustics would have to be perfect, the musicians would have to be flawless and perfectly balanced or they will stick out like a sore thumb. This setup leaves no room for error and not alot of producers would go for this inflexibility. You would have to be extremely careful of the input level, and the instruments would have to be totally acoustical or you will have significant bleeding between channels which actually decreases side to side imaging. The drums will sound pretty recessed, and the soundstage will be unbalanced because the bass is off to one side of the mix. Much of the shimmer of the drums high hats and cymbals will be lost completely to the air

I do not think this is well thought out. To record in this fashion requires alot of high quality custom made equipment which is VERY expensive to purchase and maintain. You could not use union personnel because that cost would be prohibitive, as you would have to do a enormous amout of adjusting people around to get the balance right.

This is wishful thinking which is why it isn't done more often.

[JoeE SP9]

This setup will not work in every situation. The acoustics would have to be perfect, the musicians would have to be flawless and perfectly balanced or they will stick out like a sore thumb. This setup leaves no room for error and not alot of producers would go for this inflexibility. You would have to be extremely careful of the input level, and the instruments would have to be totally acoustical or you will have significant bleeding between channels which actually decreases side to side imaging. The drums will sound pretty recessed, and the soundstage will be unbalanced because the bass is off to one side of the mix. Much of the shimmer of the drums high hats and cymbals will be lost completely to the air

I do not think this is well thought out. To record in this fashion requires alot of high quality custom made equipment which is VERY expensive to purchase and maintain. You could not use union personnel because that cost would be prohibitive, as you would have to do a enormous amout of adjusting people around to get the balance right.

This is wishful thinking which is why it isn't done more often.

First of all I disagree about the bass. Mixing the bass to center is a holdover from vinyl days when you were concerned about excessive groove excursion. Many of the reocordings I think sound the best do not have the bass panned to the center. This type of minimalist recording is done more often than you realize. Try any Holly Cole recording. Although many of her recordings have substantial studio sweetening. There are lots of other recordings done the way my diagram shows. The Jacintha I've already mentioned a lot of Chesky's and virtually all Mapleshade's. You should give some of these recordings a listen. They are an example of how recordings should sound. About the expense? More expensive than a 32 channel Neve board or a Sony DSD mixer masterer.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

First of all I disagree about the bass. Mixing the bass to center is a holdover from vinyl days when you were concerned about excessive groove excursion.

Actually that is not why one would mix bass to the center. Mixing bass to the center provides a foundation for your stereo mix. It also relieves one driver from carrying all of the bass load which lowers cone motion and reduces distortion.



Many of the reocordings I think sound the best do not have the bass panned to the center.

You are entitled to you opinion, but there is a reason why most engineer these days don't do it that way. Since one style of recording doesn't apply to all circumstances, and since most bass players prefer electric basses these days it is best to go direct from amp to mixer to avoid any bleeding.


This type of minimalist recording is done more often than you realize. Try any Holly Cole recording. Although many of her recordings have substantial studio sweetening. There are lots of other recordings done the way my diagram shows. The Jacintha I've already mentioned a lot of Chesky's and virtually all Mapleshade's.

Chesky records is a family owned business, they do their own recording in low cost locales. Not all of their recordings are done in this fashion. I own several of Mapleshades recordings, and have extensive knowledge of just how he records. He also doesn't use union help and he uses NO cost locales for recording. Both Chesky and Mapleshade's recordings require extensive setup time and constant adjustments. They only use acoustical instruments for their recordings, and most of the music they record doesn't use alot of instruments. They are responsible for less than one percent of total recordings released. With budgets, time constraints, and the hourly cost of a venue or studio, their style of recording is impossible to do in ninety nine percent of the total recordings released.


You should give some of these recordings a listen.

It would be very wrong of you to assume that I haven't





They are an example of how recordings should sound.

All recordings cannot be made like this for the reasons I have mentioned above. However other recordings done in other ways can sound just as natural as Mapleshades and Chesky. Only ignorance and lack of understanding of the recording process would make someone not believe otherwise.


About the expense? More expensive than a 32 channel Neve board or a Sony DSD mixer masterer.

Custom made mixing boards can cost more than a 32 channel Neve especially if they use nothing but high quality parts.Custom made mastering equipment can cost as much as a DSD mastering suite.

[gonefishin]

Well...I'm almost reluctant to bud into the conversation with you two. It's almost like watching a tennis match.


I think the language that many of you guys are using is not doing much justice to the understanding of the recording process. Live recordings are not "artificial" at all. They are a approximation of the live event.


Yeah...that was me. I was purposely exaggerating the point that a recording is not in fact the initial live event. I do like the way you put your words together much better than mine...I'll have to work on that ;)

When people talk about recordings...it certainly does help to understand their reference point a bit better when they give examples. I still may not agree with a person...but I know exactly what they're now talking about.

What I enjoy seeing on far too few cd labels is information on how this event was recorded. Sometimes when reading the jacket you get some good information on the artist or info regarding some history of a particular song...but once in a while the jacket will have some decent information regarding how that particular recording was made. While I'm not educated/experienced enough to build a picture of how the recording should sound by the words alone. When putting the words together with the actual music their referring to can help me associate some of the descriptions with particular sounds or styles of the recording. I wish labels did this more often.

JoeE. I'm certainly familiar with Holly Cole's music and recordings...and I've always thought they could have used a little help from a more skillful engineer. A lot of the sound is actually pretty good in the recordings...but the balance of the instruments always seemed to be a bit off to me. I haven't listened to a Holly Cole cd in quite a while...so I'll certainly revisit some of her music. Aside...there has always been something about her voice that I've always enjoyed. I'm not sure what...but it's some intangible quality in her voice (at least to me;) ). Much like Norah Jones...regardless if you like or dislike her songs...she just has that certain quality in her voice that makes it her own. I'm not describing this very well...sorry. To me...I just love some of the Mapleshade recordings...specifically the Boogeyin'! Swamprock, Salsa & 'Trane. It's just so right :)




Sir Terrence...do you happen to have any suggestions of some of your better work that I can buy (perhaps from Amazon?). Something in a brass, percussion, band, jazz, female vocal, blues, gospel selection?

Also...have you got any pictures of your system? love to see'em :D

thanks guys


dan

[JoeE SP9]

I have not been able to reply recently. My display card decided to take a permanent vacation. I still want to know why Chesky's, Mapleshades and other "audiophile" recordings always sound better (more lifelike and natural) than most if not all of the recordings done in a studio with union workers and lots of expensive and elaborate mixers consoles and other bits of assorted electronic gadgetry.

[JoeE SP9]

Well...I'm almost reluctant to bud into the conversation with you two. It's almost like watching a tennis match.




Yeah...that was me. I was purposely exaggerating the point that a recording is not in fact the initial live event. I do like the way you put your words together much better than mine...I'll have to work on that ;)

When people talk about recordings...it certainly does help to understand their reference point a bit better when they give examples. I still may not agree with a person...but I know exactly what they're now talking about.

What I enjoy seeing on far too few cd labels is information on how this event was recorded. Sometimes when reading the jacket you get some good information on the artist or info regarding some history of a particular song...but once in a while the jacket will have some decent information regarding how that particular recording was made. While I'm not educated/experienced enough to build a picture of how the recording should sound by the words alone. When putting the words together with the actual music their referring to can help me associate some of the descriptions with particular sounds or styles of the recording. I wish labels did this more often.

JoeE. I'm certainly familiar with Holly Cole's music and recordings...and I've always thought they could have used a little help from a more skillful engineer. A lot of the sound is actually pretty good in the recordings...but the balance of the instruments always seemed to be a bit off to me. I haven't listened to a Holly Cole cd in quite a while...so I'll certainly revisit some of her music. Aside...there has always been something about her voice that I've always enjoyed. I'm not sure what...but it's some intangible quality in her voice (at least to me;) ). Much like Norah Jones...regardless if you like or dislike her songs...she just has that certain quality in her voice that makes it her own. I'm not describing this very well...sorry. To me...I just love some of the Mapleshade recordings...specifically the Boogeyin'! Swamprock, Salsa & 'Trane. It's just so right :)




Sir Terrence...do you happen to have any suggestions of some of your better work that I can buy (perhaps from Amazon?). Something in a brass, percussion, band, jazz, female vocal, blues, gospel selection?

Also...have you got any pictures of your system? love to see'em :D

thanks guys


dan
If you like Holly Cole I can recommend Jacintha. Here's to Ben. This was recorded direct to 2 tracks with no overdubbing. It is one of the very few recordings to give the impression of a group of musicians actually playing together in a large room. This is the way this recording was made. This type of music should always be recorded this way. Give it a listen. I agree about Holly Cole. Her voice seems to record very well. Nora Jone has the same gift of sounding good to microphones.