Music Lover vs Audiophile

[filecat13]

In 1970 I bought what at the time was the highest level gear of anyone I knew: JBL L100 Century speakers, Kenwood KR-6160 receiver, and Dual 1219 turntable. My friends thought I was nuts, until they heard the system. Then it was an infectious disease that ran through them all. Until that time, they were content with cheap radios, crappy sounding car audio, and all-in-one cheap stereos.

I've lost touch with virtually all of them, but I know that my continuous journey took me to more and better gear over time, notwithstanding raising three kids, moving 14 times, and having to work/pay my way through college and grad school. Now I have a boatload of stuff, including those original L100s, and some of it cost quite a bit.

So now, I think I'm sort of at the audiophile part of the journey, but it's all still about being a music lover. I can say that the thrill I get from listening to a great dance, club, or trance mix on a pair of JBL K2 S9900 speakers is the same thrill I got listening to Deep Purple's Machine Head in a college dorm on the L100s is the same thrill that I got listening to "My Boyfriend's Back" on my transistor radio is the same thrill I got listening to New World Symphony on the magnavox console is the same thrill I got playing the trumpet well at state competitions (and I still play that trumpet today).

So the key to me is the journey and staying connected to the music. How did that happen? Three things, I guess.

1. Loved music.
2. Heard great sound at a neighbor's house.
3. Used a cheap, portable music device as a gateway to increasing investment in better and better equipment.

Those iPod wielding kids that so many curmudgeons decry as the ruin of quality music are actually the future travelers on the continuous journey to becoming audiophiles. They are in fact the hope for the future. Having them over to listen to a great system is the way I pay it forward for someone doing that for me, and I see the iPod as the gateway for them to take the same journey I did.

[E-Stat]

..,the depth is really an artefact of room reflections.

Gotta hate hall acoustics-where usually zero is captured.

[Mash]

Well, Sir T, our "music room" in Avon, CT from 1977 to 1990 was 20 ft square which produced a nasty ~40 Hz resonance. The Tympany were across one side of the room with ~4 ft clearance to the wall behind. I used furring strips to assemble a slanted framework, going from the wall-ceiling corner 8 Ft up and slanted about 3 ft outward toward the Tympani at the floor. I placed two staggered layers of acoustic ceiling panels on the furring strips, but I did not fasten those panels to the furring strips so that I would have as much mechanical damping as was possible.

The result? The 40 Hz nasties were gone but that wonderful sense of depth remained & everything was much clearer.

Is this what you ment by placing damping behind the Tympani?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Gotta hate hall acoustics-where usually zero is captured.

Its captured, just difficult to reproduce correctly with only two channels.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well, Sir T, our "music room" in Avon, CT from 1977 to 1990 was 20 ft square which produced a nasty ~40 Hz resonance. The Tympany were across one side of the room with ~4 ft clearance to the wall behind. I used furring strips to assemble a slanted framework, going from the wall-ceiling corner 8 Ft up and slanted about 3 ft outward toward the Tympani at the floor. I placed two staggered layers of acoustic ceiling panels on the furring strips, but I did not fasten those panels to the furring strips so that I would have as much mechanical damping as was possible.

The result? The 40 Hz nasties were gone but that wonderful sense of depth remained & everything was much clearer.

Is this what you ment by placing damping behind the Tympani?

I hope those acoustical ceiling panels where very thick(at least 4") or I highly doubt they would obsorb much energy at 40hz. Question, how do you damp a 40hz peak, and not touch any other frequencies - especially those in the mids and highs? Acoustic panels are not very good at acting like a parametric filters - notching specific frequencies without touching others.

Paint me skeptical on this.

[JoeE SP9]

Perhaps the recordings where not made for commercial release, did you ever think of that?(obviously not), Not all recordings are made for commercial release, orchestra's record their performances for a wide variety of reasons other than releasing them to the public.



My question to you is just what the hell does Jack Renners microphone count have to do with my recordings?



And you are blowing quite a bit of the smoke yourself, and I am not here to prove anything. So you understand, there is no difference in recording an orchestra for a film score, and recording one for audio only purposes. The technique is still the same, you put microphones in the best place to capture the instruments within the venue. You are creating differences where there are not really any.

Typically when I record an orchestra for a film score, I use 12-15 microphones for the surround mix. Depending on the venue I am in, I use between 7-10 to record an orchestra in a hall. I use more microphones for film scores because they usually use a larger orchestra than the typical symphony orchestra.

The number of microphones jack Renner uses goes back to my original comment. The best sounding recordings I own or have heard were done with minimal miking. With direct to disc LP's that was usually two.

Since when am I not allowed to have an opinion on the best sounding recordings? Not agreeing with you doesn't invalidate what I think. Many many enthusiasts agree with me on the sound quality of Telarc recordings and direct to disc LP's. So it's not just me.

[Mash]

Well, Sir T, the furring strips were not close together nor were they fixed together. The whole affair was intentionally rather flexible with a lot of mechanical damping occurring when the acoustic panels moved against each other. Normally we assume that a wall is "rigid" and returns or reflects all or almost all of the acoustic energy falling thereon. If the wall is mechanically lossy... there goes the reflections.

I preferred this approach rather than relying on a "form" of Helmholtz damping, which would rely on a defined space behind the panels and would also be very tricky to execute. Mechanical damping (not significant in acoustic panel ceilings) is much more predictable. I have (several times) researched the acoustic damping I believe you are referencing and that approach is, indeed, very tricky.

I had also detuned the room with the slanted surface.... rather like how one deals with flutter echos by removing wall parallelism.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The number of microphones jack Renner uses goes back to my original comment. The best sounding recordings I own or have heard were done with minimal miking. With direct to disc LP's that was usually two.

Once again Joe, using the words "minimal miking" mean absolutely nothing outside of a definition of what that means. Does it mean Renners three mikes, Renners comments on what it takes to do the job, Bishops 4 mikes, or 7 for surround sound, or 7-10 that others who call themselves minimal mikers? Without that definition, minimalist miker is nothing more than a "air sandwich" phrase used as a "market differentation" designed to highlight one way of recording over another. And now you throw in direct to disc vinyl which is the least accurate way of presenting musical information, if it is not the more euphoric way.

Since when am I not allowed to have an opinion on the best sounding recordings? Not agreeing with you doesn't invalidate what I think. Many many enthusiasts agree with me on the sound quality of Telarc recordings and direct to disc LP's. So it's not just me.

What you don't seem to understand is I don't give a damn about personal choices. That is all over the map. What I am interested in is the misfact of saying that the number of microphones determines the quality of the sound, which is patently false no matter how you look at it. Those of us who actually mix the recordings know better than to believe that. The placement of the microphones, the acoustic of the hall, the quality of the cables and skills of the mixer, the complexity of the musical score, and the ability of the performers and conductor to balance and bring out the timbral textures of the music the orchestra plays has HUGE role in the outcome. As does the quality of the dither(which is mostly likely going to be used), the DAC's, and the monitoring system used for the mix. It is the quality of the whole that determines the ultimate sound quality, not one aspect of it. We haven't even talked about your system, your room, or your hearing ability.

If you need a co-signer to validate your opinion, then it is probably based on shaky ground in the first place. Your opinions are your own, and saying other agree just means a lot of you have bought the hype. And lets face it, you are basing your opinions on a format that is at best inaccurate, and at the least limited in scale compared to a live experience. That goes a long way in understanding your perspective, and why I don't necessarily agree with it.

[Woochifer]

The number of microphones jack Renner uses goes back to my original comment. The best sounding recordings I own or have heard were done with minimal miking. With direct to disc LP's that was usually two.

Actually, most of the direct-to-disc LPs I've heard used multiple mikes run through a mixing board. Direct-to-disc simply means that a live two-channel board feed went directly to the cutting head without a tape or digital playback intermediary. With Sheffield Lab's direct-to-disc LPs, they used a single stereo tube mic to capture the Harry James Big Band performance (and my understanding is that it took a lot of preparation and arranging of the musicians to get that session to sound right), while other performances (such as the James Newton Howard, Dave Grusin, and Don Randi direct-to-disc LPs) were captured using several microphones. Even Supertramp once released a direct-to-disc 12" single, and IIRC they normally used 48 tracks.

[JoeE SP9]

Actually, most of the direct-to-disc LPs I've heard used multiple mikes run through a mixing board. Direct-to-disc simply means that a live two-channel board feed went directly to the cutting head without a tape or digital playback intermediary. With Sheffield Lab's direct-to-disc LPs, they used a single stereo tube mic to capture the Harry James Big Band performance (and my understanding is that it took a lot of preparation and arranging of the musicians to get that session to sound right), while other performances (such as the James Newton Howard, Dave Grusin, and Don Randi direct-to-disc LPs) were captured using several microphones. Even Supertramp once released a direct-to-disc 12" single, and IIRC they normally used 48 tracks.

That's not what it says on the liner notes.

For an example of a two microphone recording done direct to a CD master check out any Groove Note CD.

I've spent time on both sides of a mixing board. It's been my experience that all to often microphones and tracks are used because they are there and available. "We'll fix it in the mix" is one of the excuses used.
My rant isn't aimed at SirT it's aimed at the AutoTune it, compress it to death, use every track and ProTools to fix it bunch. The guys doing that tend not to hang out on audiophile oriented sites.

BTW: To me minimal miking means just that. The minimum necessary for the job. That's why except for direct to disc LP's I deliberately never mentioned any specific numbers for microphones.

[E-Stat]

... using the words "minimal miking" mean absolutely nothing outside of a definition of what that means.

I don't understand why you continue to ask simple questions like this or your earlier one about headphones. There really is no mystery to the answer when you understand the concept.

Renner certainly doesn't.

[GMichael]

It might just be me, but......

[E-Stat]

Its captured, just difficult to reproduce correctly with only two channels.

Difficult, yes. Impossible, no. Some engineers understood what was required,

Look up Wilma Cozart Fine and you'll find the concept of minimal milking discussed.

[Feanor]

Difficult, yes. Impossible, no. Some engineers understood what was required,

Look up Wilma Cozart Fine and you'll find the concept of minimal milking discussed.

Mercury Living Presence recordings do indeed capture a good sense of the hall. On the other hand, as I commented earlier, I really don't like that hall all that much.

IMO, MLP recordings are somewhat over rated, and there are very many later recordings that I prefer.

[Mash]

Isn't minimal mikes.... No mikes?

Then we should not have any arguments.....................

[E-Stat]

iI really don't like that hall all that much.

That hall? To which of several do you refer?
Chicago?
Eastman Rochester?
London?
Detroit?
Moscow?

[Feanor]

That hall? To which of several do you refer?
Chicago?
Eastman Rochester?
London?
Detroit?
Moscow?

I have only a few MLPs on CD. I'll need to hall them out and look. Most of the ones I have a have a slightly close-up perspective, are a bit bright, and sound high school auditorium-ish. So did Cozart Fine capture a sense of the hall? Yes, but is it an ideal recorded sound? Not so much.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Difficult, yes. Impossible, no. Some engineers understood what was required,

Look up Wilma Cozart Fine and you'll find the concept of minimal milking discussed.

I have read it. She also makes the same points I do about the process. Doing minimal miking in analog is a much easier task than doing it in digital. As you move the mike further away from a performer with digital, the instrument loses focus. In analog, it does not do that. This is the reason Renner has to basically reconstruct a hall around his recording process.

There are technicians who try to use this basic set up in these modern days of digital recording and conclude that the original 3-microphone setup has its flaws. They forget that digital formats are completely different from analog. They forget or do not know that the digital format of the CD has only 16 bits and is a linear format where relatively close miking of all the sections of instrument of an orchestra, a band or an ensemble, is imperative.

MERCURY RECORDS Living Presence - Wilma Cozart Fine and 50 Years Mercury Recordings

Unfortunately Ralph, whatever ambience is recovered is spatially distorted, and that is the nature of a crippled format. It cannot be corrected no matter what you do.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I don't understand why you continue to ask simple questions like this or your earlier one about headphones. There really is no mystery to the answer when you understand the concept.

Renner certainly doesn't.

There is no concept, because everyone has a different version of what minimalist miking is. Once again, is it three microphones, five, seven, or ten? I have heard all of these numbers as a representation of minimalist miking, and you only quote Renner. Renner is just one person who has created great recordings, so his perspective is not the only one out there.

Why do you continually avoid answering questions directly? How do you separate room reflections from the original recorded ambience, your answer use headphones. That real answer is, you can't with YOUR speakers.

As long as you dodge and deflect, I will continue to ask whatever question I desire. Got it?

[E-Stat]

This is the reason Renner has to basically reconstruct a hall around his recording process.

Two things:

1. I'm glad you acknowledge the concept. Many engineers over the past 50 years have leveraged its benefits.
2. I wouldn't exactly classify turning of the AC and moving the acoustic shells away from the stage as "reconstructing the hall".

Unfortunately Ralph, whatever ambience is recovered is spatially distorted, and that is the nature of a crippled format. It cannot be corrected no matter what you do.

Agreed. All recordings are inherently flawed to some degree. There are most certainly variations, however, on how you prioritize the many factors in order to create the artifice.

Unfortunately, most recordings are artificially flat. Painted boats on a painted sea.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Two things:

1. I'm glad you acknowledge the concept. Many engineers over the past 50 years have leveraged its benefits.
2. I wouldn't exactly classify turning of the AC and moving the acoustic shells away from the stage as "reconstructing the hall".

See this is how limited you really understand of Renner. When he was recording the CSO, he would remove seats out of the audience, and move the orchestra out into the room. He would put boards over seats to extend the RT of the room. He basically tunes the room to fit his recording practices, and I don't believe that is the only approach to getting good recordings.

Agreed. All recordings are inherently flawed to some degree. There are most certainly variations, however, on how you prioritize the many factors in order to create the artifice.

And this goes for playback systems as well.

Unfortunately, most recordings are artificially flat. Painted boats on a painted sea.

Maybe that is a flaw of recordings you listen to, but I don't have these issues with the ones I listen to.

Can expect much from Madonna or Rihanna. Their recordings contain every element that causes recordings to sound flat and overly processed.

[E-Stat]

See this is how limited you really understand of Renner.

See this is how limited you really understand how Renner recorded the ASO.

What did he do in St. Louis?
Cincinnati?
Boston?
Chicago?
Prague?
London?
Scotland?
San Francisco?
Toulouse?

Can expect much from Madonna or Rihanna. Their recordings contain every element that causes recordings to sound flat and overly processed.

Or DG, Decca, EMI, Columbia, Philips, RCA, et. al.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

See this is how limited you really understand how Renner recorded the ASO.

This comment is bullshyte and you know it.

What did he do in St. Louis?
Cincinnati?
Boston?
Chicago?
Prague?
London?
Scotland?
San Francisco?
Toulouse?

Most likely the same kinds of things he did in Cleveland and other places he has recorded. When you marry yourself so closely to a single concept, you have to repeat the same kinds of processes to get the same result.

With an increasing distance between microphone and instrument, while making a digital recording, the sound gets less precise.

MERCURY RECORDS Living Presence - Wilma Cozart Fine and 50 Years Mercury Recordings

This is why he has to do the alterations to the room to get that "Telarc" sound.

Or DG, Decca, EMI, Columbia, Philips, RCA, et. al.

This is bullshyte as well. You don't change your recording practices just because you change record companies.

[E-Stat]

This comment is bullshyte and you know it.

I was there. You were not. Speculate on!

Most likely ...

This speculation also noted.

This is why he has to do the alterations to the room to get that "Telarc" sound.

Having witnessed him in action, I understand that concept quite well. To which of his recordings have you personally attended?

You don't change your recording practices just because you change record companies.

My point is that very few stereo recordings from the last fifty years get perspective right. Those that do use minimal miking.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I was there. You were not. Speculate on!

This does not mean a damn thing. I have heard him enough times at AES to know exactly what he is doing. That fact that you were there means nothing, since what he did in that hall will likely have variations in other halls. The end result is the same - adjust the acoustics of the hall to fit your recording style. You don't have to be THERE to understand that.

This speculation also noted.

Not speculation....history.

Having witnessed him in action, I understand that concept quite well. To which of his recordings have you personally attended?

You witness him in action in one place, so that does not mean very much. And you do not have to attend his recordings to understand what he does - so cut the bullshyte Ralph. He alters the room to fit his three microphone approach, you don't have to be there to understand that.

My point is that very few stereo recordings from the last fifty years get perspective right. Those that do use minimal miking.

My point is this comment is bullshyte.

This forest of microphones as used by some Philips recording technicians, stands in clear contrast to the "simple" microphone placement applied by Bob Fine and the Mercury team.

The Philips microphone system technique consists of two basic microphones plus a number of supporting microphones. Levels were carefully adjusted to capture the original orchestral balance in the beautiful acoustics of the "Grote zaal" (large hall) of the Amsterdam Concertgebouw. Such extreme multi miking was not every Philips engineer's microphone technique in the days of analog recording. Yet the results are very positive with depth and a wide image, if the record is played on a quality system.

MERCURY RECORDS Living Presence - Wilma Cozart Fine and 50 Years Mercury Recordings

This flies directly in the face of your comments. You obviously have not heard enough recordings.

I would take the bolded comments further. You can use as many microphones as you want as long as there is are dedicated A/D converters on each input, and the ability to time align each microphone to the board. When I use a a large amount of microphones for large scale recordings, this is what I do. This preserves both the complex harmonic structure of the instruments(interactions) and the width and depth of the soundstage. When you understand this, then the benefits of the three microphones(and the cost of altering the room to fit it) are basically erased. I am sure this is why Concord Music broke up Telarc's recording team - it was too expensive to keep the three microphone approach when there are other less costly ways of recording without sacrificing quality.