|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.209.123
In Reply to: RE: The pic of that console is a great example of posted by ahendler on August 24, 2014 at 17:38:04
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.
Follow Ups:
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.
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: