Imaging

[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.

[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.

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_Article...echniques.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_Article...echniques.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.

[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.

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_Article...echniques.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.