 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.165.126.10
In Reply to: FYI: All RCA Living Stereo Classical recordings use either 2 or 3 microphones. posted by Teresa on November 30, 2005 at 19:02:25:
When I visited SoundMirror where the LS transfers to SACDs are being done, I was told explicitely that highlight and other mike streams were subtly mixed into the 2 or 3 channel mastertapes, live at the sessions.Kal
Follow Ups:
. . . and found an interview with Jack Pfeiffer (who certainly ought to have known what RCA was doing with the LS recordings!). The excerpts I'm printing below suggest (at least to me) that if indeed RCA was using more than one microphone per channel, it was probably in connection with concerto recordings:"How did those first stereo recordings turn out to be "fantastic"?"
Out of sheer ignorance. I had only used a couple of microphones - literally, one for each track. I set up two in front of the Chicago Symphony in Orchestra Hall in Chicago. And the clarity and definition that we got - of course, a lot of it had to do with the acoustics of the hall, the quality of the musicians, Reiner's balances, and so forth - were so dramatic. It was completely different from anything we had ever heard before. I set up listening sessions down on 24th Street and grabbed anyone who was around to come in and hear this fabulous sound. I remember getting some of the RCA executives to listen. They were all enormously impressed.
I think the early stereo experiment proved the point, that the fewer microphones you have, the more likely you are to get a really first-class recording. Microphones are stupid. They pick up everything that comes their way. So the more mikes you have, the more phase differences you get, plus you pick up all the reflections from the acoustical environment. It all adds up to a mess. I've always tried to limit the number of microphones.
"Still?"
Yes. Of course, there are certain advantages in multi-miking. You have only a limited amount of time in a recording session to get a good performance; in a live situation you only have one chance. You use all the insurance you can get - you put up a lot of microphones so you can try out various combinations later on [in the mix] rather than during the session, when costs are enormous. I've always felt that multi-miking gave a satisfactory result, but not the best result - not as good as just two microphones.
"Did the progression of stereo machines from two tracks to three alter your miking philosophy?"
Somewhat. In '54, Ampex came out with a machine that recorded three discrete tracks. That seemed practical, because very often you had a soloist, whom you wanted to isolate from the rest of the orchestra - so you could record the orchestra on two tracks and the soloist on the third.
"But you were still thinking one mike per track?"
Yes, although then we began to think that sometimes the center of the orchestra, which was behind the soloist, sounded a bit subdued - that it wasn't being picked up properly. So we thought, let's put a couple of mikes up for the woodwinds, just to have a little more control. And then, well, maybe we don't hear the percussion quite enough. Eventually it just got out of hand.
(The whole interview is at the link below.)
. . . that the "other mike streams" your SoundMirror contact was referring to were the ambiance mikes, such as those in the '62 Reiner Also sprach Zarathustra?It's hard to imagine "highlight" mikes being used for the Living Stereo recordings, based on everything else I've read about those recordings. Maybe they were used in a VERY subtle way (?).
Or would the addition of "highlight" mikes have been routine for some, but not all, of the LS recordings?
On my system, I can hear the spotlite mikes clearly. Take a recording like Scheherazade or the Lt Kije, both of which have many solos on various instruments. You'll hear the soloist stand out and when the solo is over the instruments will move back into the orchestral mix. Based on the reviews in TAS, you would think this should not happen, but it is there and you can hear it.
For a more natural approach, the Mercs are still my favorite as the soloists are localized and in proportion to the rest of the ensemble. The drawback is that the Mercs have audible tape hiss and a slightly brighter top end....Unfortunately, nothing is perfect.Stu
Thanks for the post - I'll take my recording of Scheherazade (XRCD - don't have the SACD yet) and give it another listen. (I've only listened to it once - I tend to listen to Fedoseyev on Canyon when I'm in the mood for this work. And Reiner's Lt. Kije has always been under my radar for some reason.)Do you feel all the LS recordings exhibit spotlighting, or just the two you mentioned? Thanks again!
No. On the concerto recordings, the center channel was almost exclusively reserved for the soloist. (Heifetz wouldn't have it any other way.) What I am speaking of is more subtle use of additional mikes mixed in to the main 3 channels at the recording console under the guidance of the recording engineers. No way to separate those out.Kal
Been collecting them for about 25 years and this is the first I heard of accent microphones. About 15 years ago I did read an article in the Absolute Sound that said that unlike Mercury Living Presense, RCA Living Stereo used spot microphones for soloists. Thus the Mercury's are true 3 mic recordings even with concerto recordings.This is the first I ever heard of RCA Living Stereo using extra microphones on non-concerto recordings.
I guess we learn something new everyday.
Teresa
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
