|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
108.21.60.113
I've hit on this before, but this week pretty special, and it is because of the AES and NARAS, so I want to bring up, again, how much you can get from the local chapter of professional audio societies. The events this week, both free, were:
1) A private screening of the Memphis Blues/Mississippi Delta Blues film "Take Me To The River," followed by a Q&A with the production team and some of the performers, and;
2) A three-hour tour of Kaufman Astoria Studios. Kaufman was founded by Adolph Zukor in 1920, and is used for film, TV, and audio production. It has 57,000 square feet of sound stage, and almost an acre of back lot. The pic is one of their great sounding control rooms, with engineer Bernard Fox leaning on the Neve V3 console.
If you are in an area with a good music scene, see if these orgs have a local chapter. There might be some great things going on, and you can expect these orgs to welcome newcomers and guests.
Audio Engineering Society (aes.org)
The audio granddaddy, with 14,000+ members and chapters world-wide. Their October convention is enormous, with a huge exhibition and over a hundred seminars, panels, and lectures. The studio tour I attended was put on by the AES New York chapter.
National Association of Record Industry Professionals (narip.com)
NARIP events often bring together people from studios, broadcasters, ad agencies, artist management, advertisers, syndicators, composers, songwriters, arrangers, and performers.
National Association of Recording Arts and Sciences (grammy.com)
They do that long award show, and local events like the film screening I went to this week.
National Association of Music Merchants (namm.org)
NAMM puts on a huge trade-only exhibition of gear every January in Anaheim, and Musik Messe two months later in Frankfurt.
IEEE (ieee.org)
Formerly the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, the IEEE is the largest technical organization in the world, with 400,000 members. Audio is a small part of their spectrum, but they are so big, that small part becomes pretty important. Pretty much every technical standard in the world was developed or at least defined by the IEEE.
Cheers,
WW
"A man need merely light the filaments of his receiving set and the world's greatest artists will perform for him." Alfred N. Goldsmith, RCA, 1922
Follow Ups:
I find it hard to comprehend how, when somebody posts something informative and positive, the thread gets hijacked by someone with an ax to grind.
If you want to diss a profession, any profession – learn the trade and spend some time in it so you actually know what you're talking about.
If you want to diss a product – go out and buy that product, do a tear-down and try to source its components. Then let us know your findings.
When flying commercial you want the aircraft to be maintained and operated by sound standards.
I find it hard to comprehend how, sixty years after some of the best recording techniques were developed, the industry still produces so much dreck. And it gets worse every day with overzealous limiting and compression - much less the overuse of mics.
I have heard countless well done recordings that illustrate what is possible and how far from that truth the industry has strayed.
Sorry if you find that a website devoted to those who desire the highest performance musical recordings is critical of your profession. Do you believe there is no room for improvement?
This is not my profession; I am an amateur. I've been assisting in a studio one or two days a week for about five years now. I do not get paid, and this is the most personally rewarding thing I have ever done.
Before I started this, I shared many beliefs common among audiophiles, some of which have been thoroughly shattered.
Most people don't have a schedule flexible enough to allow this. But audiophiles who can clear up some days or evenings can get into studios as interns, help out, and learn how people actually make those recordings we all love. When you find yourself in a control room seeing and hearing great musicians performing for an audience of two, or listening to Bob Dylan session tapes from 1969 that *no one* has heard since then, you'll know it's worth it.
We all desire the best recordings. Helping make recordings takes that to a whole 'nuther level.
WW
"A man need merely light the filaments of his receiving set and the world's greatest artists will perform for him." Alfred N. Goldsmith, RCA, 1922
Amen!
Helping make recordings takes that to a whole 'nuther level.
Indeed. I played a small part with a Telarc recording years ago. It was quite an experience to understand the work that goes on - especially before the recording even starts.
I shared many beliefs common among audiophiles, some of which have been thoroughly shattered.
Don't know about "many beliefs" for me, but it was that experience that shattered the notion that using large numbers of microphones - and fixing errors after the fact - was required in order to achieve a quality product.
why so many recordings exhibit little to no real depth and sound so artificial.
Multi-tracking gone rampant.
So, the recording studio isn't a musical instrument?
Tell that to Brian Wilson.
http://mindseyemusic.blogspot.com/
that I have any recordings of a studio.
Is that like Stomp where you record the sounds of folks moving mic stands, actuating sliders and twirling knobs?
The sound I heard in that room, through that console, on B&W 801s was stunningly good. (The amps, btw, were Mac MC-2500s, one per channel. I don't know if they were modified or not.)
I have never been in a session with 60 channels going - not even close. But Kaufman has done operas there, and I can see that adding up. When you are not recording in, say, Carnegie Hall or the Met Opera house, you're pretty much stuck with lots of micing. Their live room can fit a full orchestra, chorus, and principals, and, with flippable gobos on the walls set to their hard side out, the room has a 2.5 second decay time. But it's still not a great concert hall, so you can't do it with Bob & Wilma's three spaced omnis. How many mics do you need in a big neutral room to capture 70 musicians, 200 choristers, and 6 principals? I don't know, but it's probably a bunch. From what I can figure, Richard Mohr used about 15 mics for the 1961 Price/Gorr/Vickers/Merrill Aïda, which was tracked *in* La Scala.
Kaufman does a lot of film, and to get the spacial audio cues correct for a movie audience apparently takes some fairly intricate micing, which I'm guessing adds up to lots of channels.
The control room is interesting. It's a live end/dead end setup, with the rear wall *absolutely* dead. One of the engineers brought a blind friend over and asked if he could hear the back wall. He couldn't. (Diffuser pic attached.) It's a little spooky, but lets the engineer hear *into* the mix with extreme specificity. Again, I'd guess this becomes a big deal when mixing for 7.1, or whatever standard is used for film now. Pic is one of the diffusers in the room.
For pop or (especially) rock music, channels can get eaten up pretty fast. You can mic a drum kit for a small jazz combo with mics on the snare and kick, plus a pair of overheads - four mics total. But for rock, you'll get mud. That's when you'll often see these mics: snare top, snare bottom, kick in, kick out, floor tom, rack tom, hat, and pair of overheads. That's nine mics for a basic drum kit. Each electric guitar will be mic'd at its amp, plus direct. That gives you the ability to balance whether you want more of the intrinsic sound of the instrument (direct) or more of the amp/speaker, which may or may not be sounding its best in your particular live room. And some guitar amps benefit from having both dynamic and condenser mics on them, which brings you up to three channels per guitar. (Remember, mics do not hear like we hear. They can act as audio microscopes, or telescopes, or flatten everything, and their response can vary with the extreme SPL ranges generated by amp heads.) So, a basic drum kit, two electric guitars, bass guitar, keyboard, and three vocal mics can be 19 channels or more. Add more for bigger drum kits, other percussion, and yet more for some of the effects guitarists have on their pedal boards. It's all about capturing in the limiting environment of a studio live room what's needed so the band will sound right when played back at home.
Some of my favorite records are the three-mic Mercuries, and Doug Sax's minimally mic'd Sheffields. But the Layton/Mohr RCAs are pretty amazing, as are the Deccas of that period. In the right hands, a bunch of channels can be a good thing, even if, back in the Mohr days, everything had to be mixed *while tracking* down to the number of tape tracks available, which wasn't much.
Big consoles don't make bad recordings. Bad engineers make bad recordings. Rupert Neve's V3 sounds just glorious, and in the right hands it's gotta be a really good tool.
WW
"A man need merely light the filaments of his receiving set and the world's greatest artists will perform for him." Alfred N. Goldsmith, RCA, 1922
So, a basic drum kit, two electric guitars, bass guitar, keyboard, and three vocal mics can be 19 channels or more. Add more for bigger drum kits, other percussion, and yet more for some of the effects guitarists have on their pedal boards...
Exactly. And some folks wonder why recordings never sound real.
Big consoles don't make bad recordings
Anytime you use the capacity of that console, you're going to have a unnatural sounding recording.
Maybe you're right. Now here's a very straight question: how do you mic drums?
WW
"A man need merely light the filaments of his receiving set and the world's greatest artists will perform for him." Alfred N. Goldsmith, RCA, 1922
The SOP in rock recording at the time was to put the drummer in a small, dead isolation room with multiple mikes on different parts of his kit.
Jimmy reasoned that this unduly constricted the sound by robbing it of the acoustic ambience that made live drums sound good. He put Bonham out in the middle of a large, somewhat reflective room and set just a stereo pair of mikes about 12 feet away.
So what do you think of the drum sound on those Zep records? To me, it has more punch and more spaciousness than was typical in other rock recordings of the same era. Of course, Bonham was such a balanced player that he didn't need different parts of his kit balanced and mixed electronically. That certainly helped.
I don't, but my reference depends upon whether you refer to rock or classical. For rock, it is the Sheffield Drum Record. Contrary to your previous assertion:You can mic a drum kit for a small jazz combo with mics on the snare and kick, plus a pair of overheads - four mics total. But for rock, you'll get mud.
the resulting sound is anything but "mud" to these ears. Are you familiar with that recording? That is exactly how the miking was achieved by Bill Schnee. Actually, the Keltner track used but three mics omitting the snare highlight.
My reference for classical is any number of Telarc recordings such as the Firebird or Carmina Burana by the ASO. Renner used a total of five on the former with no need for drum specific mics. Or, the Fine team you mentioned earlier.
Edits: 08/25/14
I just pulled it out and gave it a listen for the first time in a couple decades. It's pretty great.
I guess what I should have said is that most engineers, in typical live rooms, will get mud trying to minimally mic rock. And the track record *is* a very pared-down ensemble; mostly bass, reduced drum kit, and synthesizer. (Is there any snare or hat?) I don't think I've heard anyone try to do a minimalist mic setup on a typical rock band, i.e. two EGTs, 1 bass, drums, 2+ vocals, keyboard.
But the drum sound on that record is really good.
Love the pic, BTW. A couple years ago at the AES, a nephew (I think) presented pics and home movies of the early Mercury days, including their location recording truck.
WW
"A man need merely light the filaments of his receiving set and the world's greatest artists will perform for him." Alfred N. Goldsmith, RCA, 1922
And the track record *is* a very pared-down ensemble; mostly bass, reduced drum kit, and synthesizer. (Is there any snare or hat?)
That must not be the same recording. This "not-at-all-pared-down" kit has kick, toms, snare, high hat, cymbals, cow bells and a wee recorder.
This recording is taut and punchy with crisp sounding "skins" and plenty of upper harmonic extension on the steel. Not sure if you followed the post from The Devil that included a link as to how the Fleetwood Mac Dreams album was recorded. Apparently, six mics were used on the drums with the difference being two on the toms. The toms on SH14 (despite not having their own mics) sound darn good on my electrostats. :)
The problem is that these great analog consoles have been replaced by Pro Tools and so called engineers who don't have any idea what they are doing. Also since multi track nobody records a band all at once but in little pieces. That has also contributed to the lousy sound of todays recordings
Alan
Also since multi track nobody records a band all at once but in little pieces. That has also contributed to the lousy sound of todays recordings
Exactly. Where 32 track was once the norm, we now have - what 100 track capability? Let's dumb down the process as much as we can and see just how artificial the results can be.
The # of tracks - assuming there is more than 2 employed - has zilch to do with over-dubbing. As anyone who has ever used a 4-track tape recorder knows, tracks 1 & 2 could be recorded in 2014 and tracks 3 & 4 in 2015 - OR - all tracks could be recorded simultaneously. The same applies regardless of # of tracks. There are countless multi-track recordings made with every track employed recorded at exactly the same time, as were my own multi-track big band recordings.
Do you think all recordings are or should be an attempt to replicate live and/or "natural" sound?. Would you prefer that Sgt. Pepper had never happened?
The # of mics and/or tracks has little to do with resultant sound quality. Its the engineers, specific mics and their placement, mixing/mastering that determine sound quality whether live to 2-track or 64 track mixes. There are also countless recordings with overdubs recorded at different times - even at different studios in different cities - that you would never know employed overdubs. Of course if done badly, they sound shitty, just as plenty of live to 2 track recordings utilizing only 3 mics or less suck.
How 'bout countless Philips/Decca/RCA/Lyrita/Erato recordings that were made with quite a few mics/tracks and mixed down - they all sound artificial? The sound on every multi-tracked Steely Dan recording sucks? Multi-track Gerry Mulligan Concert Band recordings have bad sound? I could type a VERY long list of excellent recordings never intended to exemplify what you'd hear live, and a VERY long list of multi-miked/multi-track recordings that sound damn good.
Is electronic music "natural"? Recording a group that plays electronic instruments and amps for each instrument is "natural" if you employ only 1-3 mics in front/center of the group (thereby recording the sound emanating from each axe's amp) live to 2 track, and UNnatural if electric guitar/bass/synths are recorded direct to the console (and/or direct & miked amp combined) and mixed utilizing 1-64 tracks? Exactly how many mics and tracks is natural and how many is UNnatural?
Some recordings strive to simply replicate sound you'd hear at a live concert and employ only 1/2/3 mikes and 2 tracks, others utilize the full palette of what's available in recording studios to produce a totally different animal. Both can be done very well and very badly. To think multi-miked/multi-track is inherently bad is wrong-headed, as so many recordings display.
LOL. If you have zero multi-miked re4cordings, then wtf
Your speed reading is not working. Let's review what I actually posted:
I can't think of any single miked recordings in my collection.
You've got it bass ackwards. Here's a thought. Quote something I've actually posted and respond to that. I find zero value with debating your imagination.
I refer to the sound of ANY type of music.
So providing a natural perspective is somehow bad?
Assuming your talking about my own recordings (and aside from purely musical considerations), its to end up with sound as good as I can - that is also financially feasible.
Not in particular - oh I see you're a musician. Maybe the last part is the answer. Why bother putting together a quality product?
I think I've had some success in that, including my big band multi-miked/multi-tracked recordings, and so do the people who've reviewed 'em.
How many microphones did you use? Forty? Fifty? Sixty?
Gotta go, I'll have to reply later if you post more.
Thank you. Perhaps you might actually quote and respond to something I've posted.
You say that I didn't respond to some of your questions. Why? I have idea as to their relevance to the topic of why anyone needs a sixty track console. Here's an example:
Would you prefer that Sgt. Pepper had never happened?
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. Ping pongy at that. Whoever mixed Day Tripper was experiencing some good drugs at the time. As a teenager, I thought the effect was kinda cool, but hokey. How about Revolution Nine - where the lyrics "number" and "nine" ping pong across the stage? All of the Beatles recordings could "have happened" quite successfully without the cheesy effects. And I'm quite confident that George didn't have sixty channels.
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
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 youWe'll just forget you responded to my comments about a sixty track console.
Do you know how many tracks were *effectively* employed by ping-ponging (no, not the left/right stereo mixing effect you called ping-pong)?
There's a voice In Revolution 9 that says "number" and another that says "nine". How many tracks does it require to carry that off?
edit:
Despite no first hand experience in professional recording -
Wrong assumption. You can always ask.
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.
Unnatural sound, yes. Perhaps you might respond to that which I've posted. If you don't understand the concept of a natural sounding result, then clearly there's nothing to discuss!
Edits: 08/26/14
Probably not for the Beatles but George Martin did spec a 72ch console for his own AIR Lyndhurst studio (he uses an 80ch SSL in the other room there) and a 56ch for the much older Oxford Street facility.
His AIR Montserrat studio featured a 60ch SSL with an extra 12 Focusrite channels in a sidecar.
what did he do with them?
Use them I suppose.
Sir George does not strike as a man who spends his own money on 72ch of what likely was the most expensive console available when he only needs 16.Either way the lists of credits for George Martin and his various AIR recording facilities is way to long to post here but it does include 3 McCartney albums and the Live And Let Die soundtrack as well as the Yellow Submarine soundtrack.
Edits: 08/26/14
the reason for having so many tracks is to "patch" problems after the fact. :)
" It would probably have been easier today, but it probably wouldn't have turned out as well . I think the discipline of 4-track in 1967 made us do things - certainly made me do things - that you wouldn't do today. And it made The Beatles perform better. They had to perform. They had to be good in order to concentrate on small tracks at a time.
There wasn't the luxury of saying, well, we can patch that later. We couldn't do that; we had to work things to a conclusion as we went along. Particularly when you're mixing down from one 4-track to another, you solidify everything that has gone before. You couldn't go back, otherwise you'd destroy everything that you were doing. That discipline, and that forward-thinking, I think was part of the success of Sgt Pepper.
Having to do that worked out very much in our favour. 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. But I'm not sorry that I didn't!"
Martin on production
I do not disagree and I'm a firm believer that technical restrictions are frequently a good thing as it does force the artists to perform better in the studio.
As it happens the recordings I enjoy most were made at times when technical limitations did abound. The SQ may not be all there but the emotions are and usually in staggering amounts when compared to what came later in the wake of the technical overkill.
For example Steely Dan are frequently mentioned as the benchmark for SQ and they used every studio trick available including the first use of a digital sampler to clean up the drum timing (12bit, 12.5khz no less!).
However all their output leaves me emotionally completely cold compared to a cheap 16tr recording like The Specials for example. Or Otis Redding or Sam&Dave or Booker T etc.
The reason for 60 channels, or 72 channels, or whatever number, isn't because they use them all the time, it's because they MIGHT need them, and because having more channels available gives you a marketing edge over the studio across town that only has 36 channels. Especially in film production, you can burn through channels in a hurry. And when you've got a 20 or 40 piece orchestra, and effects tracks, and dialogue tracks, and both raw and processed tracks, and, and, ...
:)
I know but the problem is that the temptation to use more channels/outboard gear/editing than absolutely necessary there for all to see, right in the middle of the control room.
Which incidentally is my main gripe with digital recording/production.
IMO the sound quality is no problem at all (even cheap digital gear easily outperforms a top-of-the-range Studer) but the ability to quick and easily fiddle with things which should not be fiddled with like pitch and timing corrections added to an unlimited track count.
Also makes for lazy artists who insist on fixing things 'in the mix' rather than in their performance.
nt
.
I refer to the sound of unamplified music. How about you?
Do you think all recordings are or should be an attempt to replicate live and/or "natural" sound?.
What is your goal?
To think multi-miked/multi-track is inherently bad is wrong-headed, as so many recordings display.
I can't think of any single miked recordings in my collection. I'll be happy to discuss anything I've actually said.
Guys, guys - relax! It's all good.
There are multiple ways to make recordings.
It just depends on what the goal is.
You can put drum mics up-top or down-below or both, you can use two or ten; you can compress, not compress, multi-mic, minimalist mic, EQ, limit, whatever.
The approach and end result will be what the producer either wants or accepts.
But that is the incomparable Neve--the finest ever developed brainchild of Englishman Rupert
Neve-
Featured in the Dave Grohl Doco
soundcitymovie.com
Des
That particular Neve console was an '86 model.
At that time Neve was owned by Siemens and Rupert had left the company eleven years earlier in '75. Rupert's input on the design of that console was zero.
In 1985 Rupert Neve founded Focusrite building mic pres and compressors.
1988 Rupert released the legendary Focusrite Forté console, a cost-no-object statement.
Apparently for potential customers cost was an object and only 6 were ever sold: two to each the US and Japan, one was installed in London and one in Bophuthatswana to the best of my knowledge.
I was relating to the Neve Consoles in general
Des
Then why did you post what you did when you know it's BS?
When the Neve was mentioned --i was simple relating to the product in general terms and its
influence on the recording scene in general -not that one specifically in the shot
I don't think I should be shot at dawn
Des
A Neve was mentioned and as it happened one that had nothing at all to do with Rupert and whose SQ, going by people who have actually used it, is well below par. Which itself is kinda odd because Siemens at the time made some exceptionally good consoles under their own name.
Unfortunately as great as Rupert is as a designer he seems to be quite bad at the business side of things. He did found Focusrite in '85 and produced the Forté console in '88 but by '89 he had left Focusrite. The name and remaining assets were bought by someone else.
Either way this is what you said:"But that is the incomparable Neve--the finest ever developed brainchild of Englishman Rupert Neve"
As it stands I can not find a shred of truth in that statement. You would get no grieve from me had you said that about a Neve which was actually designed by Rupert like the custom Neves commissioned by George Martin and used in the various AIR Studios.
1975?!! Wow, has it been that long? Heck, I was still wet behind the ears back then, and getting all misty-eyed over Neve consoles, UA compressors, and other audio things. Those were the days!It would be interesting to know what other designers think of Rupert Neve's works. All those guys have a kind of love/hate relationship.
:)
Edits: 08/25/14
The problem isn't the console per se - it's the ludicrous number of tracks.
Stack a hundred photo sides and look through all of them at once through the light. See any depth?
I can stack over 500 files of the Moon shot with RED 5K Dragon and get the Image Pin sharp
on a 3m Fuji Chrome Print from an Osi Lightjet printer.
Sorry -but you must agree the Neve was a product that delivered some fine Analog LP's
Sound City Ca
Des
when you place it in context.
I can stack over 500 files of the Moon
How often do engineers mix tracks the of same microphone?
Now, stack images of a hundred pictures of various planets, asteroids, along with different objects from the Messier catalog to illustrate my analogy in your context.
Sorry -but you must agree the Neve was a product that delivered some fine Analog LPs
Such as?
Surely you must agree there is some merit in the recordings of the Artists below
--all done throughout the Neve Console at Sound City Ca 1971-1992
Fleetwood Mac
Tom Petty
Elton John
Neil Young
Metallica
Guns N'Roses
Foreigner
Johnny Cash
Buckingham Nicks
Cheap Trick
Red Hot Chilli Peppers
among others
Like I mentioned take a squiz at Dave Grohl's Sound City Doco--he bought the Console and has it now in his Studio in Seattle
Good Listening,
Des
my observation had to do with the picture of a sixty track console. I seriously doubt that any of those recordings to which you refer employed that many mics.
Of your list, I have recordings by Fleetwood Mac and find it very hard to believe they had any need to use anywhere near that many on four people.
Here is how they recorded 'Go Your Own Way'.
.
Also the Acoustical Society of America.
http://acousticalsociety.org/
Its convention will be October 27-31 in Indianapolis.
:)
And don't forget, AES will be happening in L.A. October 9-12.
Be there or be square!
:)
Very informative. Great pic as well!
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: