Home General Asylum

General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories.

Deeper and deeper.

Well, shucks and by golly. Didn't realize I'm not allowed to have something to do other than hang here responding to your brilliant posts. I deleted the phantom post for 3 reasons: after rereading my post I saw the error in my uncompleted heading; I was dissatisfied with the post in general; and I had 2nd thoughts about responding to you further. Since you chose to respond to what I deleted, and in a typically arrogant manner.......

"Your speed reading is not working. Let's review what I actually posted:"

My heading was a mistake on my part, which as I said contributed to the reasons why I deleted the post. Unlike you, I prefer to get rid of errors. Funny how you picked the post I deleted to respond to instead of responding to any of the points made in my first post.

BTW - I do have a recording of one of my quartets which was made using one single stereo mic out front of the band at a live performance in a small and good acoustic space. The group balance/timbre is replicated very well. Achieving the same results with large ensembles employing only one mic is problematic.

"Why bother putting together a quality product?"

Ignorant, to put it mildly. You've never heard my recordings, yet question my approach to music/recording and the results. You know zero about the recordings I've actually produced, and sure as hell have no fucking clue whatsoever how much money I put into my recording projects. Its doubtful you know anything at all about the costs of engineers, studio time for recording/mixing/mastering, glass masters, pressed cd's.

"So providing a natural perspective is somehow bad?"

Gratuitous bs. Have no idea what that's about.

"How many microphones did you use? Forty? Fifty? Sixty?"

Again, ignorant and snarky. AFAIK you've never heard the cd's I've released, have no clue how they were recorded nor anything about their sound quality or the music on 'em. I wasn't aware I was supposed to count the # of mics we employed so I could accurately respond to lame posts from someone like you. Having participated in scores of recordings, my experience - which of course you lack - has shown that it ain't the # of mics utilized that determines sound quality. If you want to listen to some examples from my big band cd's (16/NYC) check my profile for my website. I look forward to you telling me how many mics were used. You could also hear examples of the one-mic recording listed under "Quartet".

" I have idea as to their relevance to the topic of why anyone needs a sixty track console."

That much is clear. How many tracks do you think a movie score for full orchestra plus synths/rhythm section should employ, two? I'll ask you again - exactly how many tracks is ok and how many is necessarily bad?

Despite no first hand experience in professional recording - I can only assume that based on your posts - you pretend that you know whereof you speak. It seems a safe bet that you've never been a participant in a professional recording, yet you are apparently nevertheless convinced that employing a 60 track console (and a great one at that) is necessarily negative excess and necessarily results in bad sound.

"Exactly what does that mean in context? You are probably aware that most of the George Martin mixes were done for mono and only later were they translated to stereo."

Whether a recording is mixed down to mono or stereo has nothing to do with # of tracks. You could employ 128 tracks and mix it to mono, and you can employ 2 tracks for stereo. You could use one mic for stereo and a hundred for mono.

You don't seem to understand how Martin and the Beatles utilized 4 tracks. Think every vocal/instrument on Sgt. Pepper was recorded at the same time on 4 tracks? Do you know how many tracks were *effectively* employed by ping-ponging (no, not the left/right stereo mixing effect you called ping-pong)? Do you dismiss Sgt. Pepper and other Beatles albums as crap recordings because they employed a shitload of UNnatural studio effects and ping-ponged tracks to effectively have who knows how many tracks?

Like George Martin, I'm glad they recorded the way they did, before the advent of huge multi-track consoles. It forced them to be highly creative and inventive in recording techniques as well as focusing their playing/singing. But you conveniently ignored this from Martin:

"It sounds as though we chose to do that, but of course we didn't. We used only the tools that were available, and that's all that was available. I think if I'd had 72 tracks, or whatever, in those days, I would have used them."

I'm done responding to you on this subject. When I started replying I doubted you knew what you were talking about regarding recording. That doubt has been removed.





Edits: 08/26/14 08/26/14

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Sonic Craft  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.