Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 51 to 63 of 63

Thread: Imaging

  1. #51
    Phila combat zone JoeE SP9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,710

    Imaging requires depth

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    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.
    ARC SP9 MKIII, VPI HW19, Rega RB300
    Marcof PPA1, Shure, Sumiko, Ortofon carts, Yamaha DVD-S1800
    Behringer UCA222, Emotiva XDA-2, HiFimeDIY
    Accuphase T101, Teac V-7010, Nak ZX-7. LX-5, Behringer DSP1124P
    Front: Magnepan 1.7, DBX 223SX, 2 modified Dynaco MK3's, 2, 12" DIY TL subs (Pass El-Pipe-O) 2 bridged Crown XLS-402
    Rear/HT: Emotiva UMC200, Acoustat Model 1/SPW-1, Behringer CX2310, 2 Adcom GFA-545

  2. #52
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeE SP9
    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?



    [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?[/quote]

    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.



    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.
    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.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  3. #53
    Phila combat zone JoeE SP9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    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.
    ARC SP9 MKIII, VPI HW19, Rega RB300
    Marcof PPA1, Shure, Sumiko, Ortofon carts, Yamaha DVD-S1800
    Behringer UCA222, Emotiva XDA-2, HiFimeDIY
    Accuphase T101, Teac V-7010, Nak ZX-7. LX-5, Behringer DSP1124P
    Front: Magnepan 1.7, DBX 223SX, 2 modified Dynaco MK3's, 2, 12" DIY TL subs (Pass El-Pipe-O) 2 bridged Crown XLS-402
    Rear/HT: Emotiva UMC200, Acoustat Model 1/SPW-1, Behringer CX2310, 2 Adcom GFA-545

  4. #54
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    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.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  5. #55
    Phila combat zone JoeE SP9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    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.
    ARC SP9 MKIII, VPI HW19, Rega RB300
    Marcof PPA1, Shure, Sumiko, Ortofon carts, Yamaha DVD-S1800
    Behringer UCA222, Emotiva XDA-2, HiFimeDIY
    Accuphase T101, Teac V-7010, Nak ZX-7. LX-5, Behringer DSP1124P
    Front: Magnepan 1.7, DBX 223SX, 2 modified Dynaco MK3's, 2, 12" DIY TL subs (Pass El-Pipe-O) 2 bridged Crown XLS-402
    Rear/HT: Emotiva UMC200, Acoustat Model 1/SPW-1, Behringer CX2310, 2 Adcom GFA-545

  6. #56
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeE SP9
    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
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  7. #57
    Phila combat zone JoeE SP9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    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.
    Last edited by JoeE SP9; 07-13-2005 at 02:49 PM.
    ARC SP9 MKIII, VPI HW19, Rega RB300
    Marcof PPA1, Shure, Sumiko, Ortofon carts, Yamaha DVD-S1800
    Behringer UCA222, Emotiva XDA-2, HiFimeDIY
    Accuphase T101, Teac V-7010, Nak ZX-7. LX-5, Behringer DSP1124P
    Front: Magnepan 1.7, DBX 223SX, 2 modified Dynaco MK3's, 2, 12" DIY TL subs (Pass El-Pipe-O) 2 bridged Crown XLS-402
    Rear/HT: Emotiva UMC200, Acoustat Model 1/SPW-1, Behringer CX2310, 2 Adcom GFA-545

  8. #58
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeE SP9
    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.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  9. #59
    Phila combat zone JoeE SP9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    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.
    ARC SP9 MKIII, VPI HW19, Rega RB300
    Marcof PPA1, Shure, Sumiko, Ortofon carts, Yamaha DVD-S1800
    Behringer UCA222, Emotiva XDA-2, HiFimeDIY
    Accuphase T101, Teac V-7010, Nak ZX-7. LX-5, Behringer DSP1124P
    Front: Magnepan 1.7, DBX 223SX, 2 modified Dynaco MK3's, 2, 12" DIY TL subs (Pass El-Pipe-O) 2 bridged Crown XLS-402
    Rear/HT: Emotiva UMC200, Acoustat Model 1/SPW-1, Behringer CX2310, 2 Adcom GFA-545

  10. #60
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeE SP9
    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.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  11. #61
    Forum Regular gonefishin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Joliet, Ill.
    Posts
    342
    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

    thanks guys


    dan
    __________________
    I found the spoon
    __________________


    enjoy the music!

  12. #62
    Phila combat zone JoeE SP9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,710
    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.
    ARC SP9 MKIII, VPI HW19, Rega RB300
    Marcof PPA1, Shure, Sumiko, Ortofon carts, Yamaha DVD-S1800
    Behringer UCA222, Emotiva XDA-2, HiFimeDIY
    Accuphase T101, Teac V-7010, Nak ZX-7. LX-5, Behringer DSP1124P
    Front: Magnepan 1.7, DBX 223SX, 2 modified Dynaco MK3's, 2, 12" DIY TL subs (Pass El-Pipe-O) 2 bridged Crown XLS-402
    Rear/HT: Emotiva UMC200, Acoustat Model 1/SPW-1, Behringer CX2310, 2 Adcom GFA-545

  13. #63
    Phila combat zone JoeE SP9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,710
    Quote Originally Posted by gonefishin
    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

    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.
    ARC SP9 MKIII, VPI HW19, Rega RB300
    Marcof PPA1, Shure, Sumiko, Ortofon carts, Yamaha DVD-S1800
    Behringer UCA222, Emotiva XDA-2, HiFimeDIY
    Accuphase T101, Teac V-7010, Nak ZX-7. LX-5, Behringer DSP1124P
    Front: Magnepan 1.7, DBX 223SX, 2 modified Dynaco MK3's, 2, 12" DIY TL subs (Pass El-Pipe-O) 2 bridged Crown XLS-402
    Rear/HT: Emotiva UMC200, Acoustat Model 1/SPW-1, Behringer CX2310, 2 Adcom GFA-545

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-13-2004, 07:01 PM
  2. Help better Imaging needed-receiver
    By bipper in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-03-2004, 12:48 PM
  3. What makes a good Power Amplifier?
    By BillB in forum Amps/Preamps
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 09-01-2004, 11:11 AM
  4. imaging help
    By mikert456 in forum Speakers
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-06-2004, 06:00 PM
  5. Question about stereo imaging
    By codebutcher in forum General Audio
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-04-2004, 10:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •