|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
172.197.100.35
ALEXANDER SKRYABIN: Symphony No. 3
YEVGENY SVETLANOV: Piano Concerto in C Minor; Prelude in A Minor
Ovchinnikov, Dmitriev, St. Petersburg Academic Symphony Orchestra [SACD] Water Lily Acoustics WLA-WS-75-SACDA pure DSD recording made in the great St. Petersburg's Hall using only 2 microphones
Where's the Bass? Where's the midrange warmth? This is the coldest, driest classical recording I have ever heard and one of the worst sounding SACDs ever. What went wrong Kari Alexander? The only thing I can think of is he had the two microphones in the worst possible place. The old Water Lily Nature's Realm SACD which is on the cold/dry side sounds fantastic compared to this one. Nature's Realm had the excuse of being recorded in a poor hall, but St. Petersburg is a great hall. This SACD is so bad I am putting it up on eBay this weekend, as I never want to hear it again.
My advice ignore these new Water Lily Acoustics SACDs. Since I refuse to be all downer, my next post is my recommended SACDs purchased in the last 2 months.
Follow Ups:
Dear music lovers,Just some additional info (or fuel) for this very interesting discussion.
The reality of figure of 8 microphones:
Figure of 8 microphones are pressure gradient microphones. Meaning, they are only sensitive to the pressure difference between the front and back of the membrane. For long wavelength, i.e. low frequencies, this pressure difference will be small. For higher frequencies, shorter wavelength, the pressure difference will be bigger. As a result you have a transducer with HP characteristics, a 6dB/oct filter. To compensate this HP behaviour, somewhere between 200 to 300 hz, there is a LP filter to achieve a “flat” response from that frequency upwards and to achieve a reasonable sensitivity of the mic. (the lower frequency of this LP filter, the lower the sensitivity will be). This microphone is a very nice EQ, about -15 dB @ 50Hz.
The frequency response varies with sound source distance. If the source is close, about 6 inches, you get reasonable bass. When the source is far away, 15 to 20 feet, there is very little bass. This is called the “proximity effect”.
The rear of the microphone will pick up the reflections and reverb of the hall in antiphase, not necessarily a problem.
Distortion of this type of microphone is in average 20dB higher compared to omnidirectional microphones.
Off axis response not ideal.
Extremely sensitive for contact noise and airflow.
This is why recordings done solely with fig of 8 mic’s also have their own “sound”.
This is microphone theory (and practice), free available on internet.
Jean-Marie Geijsen
"A little learning is a dangerous thing".Geijsen has posted a lot of technical material, some of which is accurate, and deduced therefrom completely incorrect conclusions.
A few points:
1 stereo imaging: The point of Blumlein stereo is not just that things are in the right place(though they indeed are). Rather , the point is that things are SOMEPLACE. Spaced omni recordings present confusing and internally contradictory locational cues to the listener to the point that things are not exactly anywhere. It is well known that the ear/brain tries to locate all sounds, and when it cannot do so, it continues to try. This creats uncertainty and anxiety. (Indeed one of the classic pictures of panic is being startled by a sound seemingly from out of nowhere). I cannot say that no one likes fuzzy spaced-omni stereo , but I surely do not, for this reason among others.
2 Coloration: The BBC, who have done more work on this sort of thing than anyone else, arrived at the conclusion that the least colored(or should I say coloured) vocal sound was that of the Coles ribbon(a figure 8). So much for the coloration claims for omnis.
3 Spaced -omni stereo has no playback reciprocity paradigm whatever. Moreover, the mixing of the mike outputs in the recording process and/or on playback creates wild comb filter effects. To check this out, play a mono pink noise signal through two speakers. Now move from the central axis,even a little way. The sound changes wildly and unpredictably. This is what happens when a sound source is picked up by two spaced omnis and played back in stereo, if the sound is anywhere except EXACTLY on the center line. Comb filtering like mad.
4 Omnis pick up diffuse field sound in abundance, but there is no reciprocal playback mechanism for diffuse soundfield. This is a bit thorny to explain in detail, but it is still true. (The ears diffuse field response is a lot different from its direct arrival, as from speakers, response).
In short, the whole idea that omnis do anything that one can describe as predictabe, playback-paradigm sound reproduction is simply a misconception. (The famous Bell Labs experiments were reproduction of sound IN AN AUDITORIUM--where the hall was providing a lot of reverb. This has essentially NOTHING to do with the reproduction of sound for a home environment).Even if omni mikes were perfect(which of course they are far from being), the spaced omni stereo process would produce a confused, colored, and inaccurate sonic picture.
REG
PS I have described all this in much more detail on www.regonaudio.com. Have a look!
Dear Mr. Greene,
1)“Spaced omni recordings present confusing and internally contradictory locational cues to the listener to the point that things are not exactly anywhere.” Yes you are right, the problem is that as long as we use two speakers, the same applies to our playback system. In other words, any recording done with spaced omnis, ORTF or crossed pairs, played back on two speakers located 10 feet apart, will suffer from these “contradictory locational cues” due to our spaced loudspeaker set up and the fact that we can not prevent people moving around when they listen to music. See also point 3.
2)“the least colored(or should I say coloured) vocal sound was that of the Coles ribbon(a figure 8).” I do not now how this microphone was set up in relation to the voice, but for voice recordings, the distance between microphone and source is rather small, let say around 30 cm. Compare this to a orchestral recording where the microphone distance to the source is often 5 meter or more. When manufacturers give specifications of the frequency response of their directional microphone, they always mention the measurement distance between sound source and microphone. Simply because the output of their microphone, for the low end, can vary up to 20 dB or more when the source to microphone distance varies from extremely close to 5 meters or more.
3)“play a mono pink noise signal through two speakers”, I am happy that you mention this test. This is exactly one of the tests we use for setting up our loudspeaker set up. This mono signal tells you a lot about your loudspeaker set up and the ability of our stereo loudspeakers, spread 8 - 10 feet apart, to produce a non coloured phantom image. To hear this pink noise signal uncoloured you have to listen with one ear closed, and the other ear positioned exactly on the central axis. It will be very difficult to locate the origin of the sound but at least it is uncoloured. If you listen with both ears, you have to sit again exactly on the central axis and now you will hear a nice phantom image in the middle but it is already coloured due to the delayed arrival of the left speaker signal at you right ear, interfering with the non delayed signal from the right speaker, causing a comb filter. Needless to say that the same happens on the other ear. When you move side ways as you suggest, these comb filters will change frequency, and therefore the pink noise will be different coloured depending on your position. Now attenuate the signal on your right channel about 3 dB. As a result the image will shift to the left. Now move again and notice that you will hear the same comb filters as before, less extreme, but they are still there. What we also can hear is a sharp shift of the phantom image position to the left when you move left. This test tells us that our 2 loudspeaker set up is not capable of producing a non coloured, stable phantom image ANYWHERE between the loudspeakers when the signal is a mono signal. As long as we use two speakers for stereo, we will suffer from this unwanted artefact.
Ergo: we have to work with a stereo loudspeaker set up that is far from perfect.
Lets see what happens when we use different main microphone set ups in combination with our spaced loudspeaker set up.
We are listening to a recording made using a coincident microphone set up. The spatial image is completely build upon level differences so the left an right signals are identical (mono) signals. The only thing that varies from left to right is level. Now we have a sound source halfway to the right on stage, which is audible half way to the right on the speaker set up. Now move a little bit off centre to the left. Immediately the phantom image will move to the left. Furthermore, we will have a comb filter as we have seen in our test before. The fact that the comb filter frequency on the playback side is independent of the angle of incident of the sound on the main microphone system is a crucial observation. This comb filter is very strong with deep notches from only one (actually two, since we have two ears,) pronounced comb filter frequency and is the same for direct sound and diffuse sound on the recording. So for an orchestra, spread from left to right between the loudspeakers, the tonal balance of the orchestra and the acoustics of the hall will suffer equally from this single pronounced comb filter when not sitting exactly in the middle since a single comb filter is extremely audible.
Now we look at the spaced microphone set up. Imaging is mainly based on time differences. We start with the same source on stage, halfway to the right, and our phantom image half way to the right on the speaker set up. Sitting exactly in the middle, the direct sound will suffers from a comb filter due to the fact that there is a time difference between left and right. When we move a little bit off centre, the phantom image will also move, but less compared to the coincident set up. The comb filter will change frequency like before. But the comb filter frequency for the direct sound and the diffuse sound will change independent from each other. The reason for this is the fact that at the playback side, the comb filter, which is the result of moving position, is super imposed on the infinite number of diffuse sound comb filters created by the pick up of the spaced omni set up.
The time difference between the left and right signal varies with the angle of incident on the main system and therefore, on the playback side, there is not one single pronounced comb filter but a infinite number of different comb filters. So for the reverb of the hall, the infinite amount of different comb filters will effectively compensate each other and as a result we have a smooth flat frequency response for the diffuse sound field almost independent of the listening position. The comb filter on the playback side is “absorbed” by the infinite comb filters on the recording side. If we look at the orchestra positioned from extreme left to extreme right, the comb filters will also vary, dependant on the angle of incident. For the strings, which are large groups of people, this comb filter will almost not exist. For solo instruments like flute or trumpet, the comb filters will be more pronounced, but at the same time the comb filter notches will be filled by reflections, so at the end, the resulting comb filter is not as extreme as one could expect from theory.
So my conclusion is that although a spaced omni set up is maybe not perfect, it coops much better with the problems we encounter on the playback side. I prefer the less deep and less pronounced comb filters combined with a more stable (not sharp) image compared to the more instable and sensitivity to single frequency comb filters of the coincident techniques. I have tried many different main systems. 15 years ago I have done at least 25 recording with crossed fig of eight and/or ORTF systems before I decided to continue with spaced omni’s.
My personal view is that since we can not prevent listeners moving their head when listening to music, we have to take the shortcomings of our loudspeaker set up in account when discussing microphone set ups.
4)“Omnis pick up diffuse field sound in abundance “, yes, omni’s do pick up a lot of diffuse sound compared to crossed fig. of eight when mounted at the same distance to a sound source. But the crossed fig. of eight are mostly positioned twice (1.7 to be exact) as far away from the sound source compared to omnis, so the direct to indirect (diffuse) sound ratio will be equal for both systems. The last time we did a recording in the Philharmonia in St. Peterburg we had our omni’s 1.5 meter in front and 3.5 meters above the orchestra. During the recording Mr. Alexander did, the main system was 15 feet (5meter) in front of and 10 feet up, more then 3 times as far. So probably there was at least as much diffuse sound ,if not more, on this recording then we had.I do appreciate your response very much, and I find this a very stimulating discussion. So please, if you find my writing offensive, please remember that I am not English.
Best regards,
I have limited time at this very moment, so I cannot respond to all of Mr. Geijsen's interesting remarks. I shall return to this later, if I may.
But I do want to clarify one point. When I was talking about the moving away from the central axis with the same pink noise signal in each of two speakers, I was trying to give people a way to hear time-delay comb filtering, not commenting on stereo playback itself. This was not very clearly expressed perhaps. The point is that when one listens to the same source with a time delay, as when picking up a live (single) source with spaced out microphones, comb filters are introduced when the microphone signals are combined subsequently.
It is of course the case that stereo playback itself introduces time delays when one moves off the central plane.Let me suggest a test. Imagine walking across a stage carrying a pink noise source and that this source is going to be recorded.
If you record with a Blumlein pair, there is no time delay and all that changes is the relative intensity of the signal in the two channels. If you record with two (say) spaced omnis, then each microphone will pick up the same signal with slightly changing intensity but very substantial time delays.Now imagine playback. In the Blumlein, the two speakers are playing each an uncolored signal with no time differential. The ear/brain is receiving no time information but is locatiing the source by intensity stereo. As it happens, up to around 1500 Hz, the signals combine around the head to give almost exactly the phase and frequency response that would have happened in reality. In the higher frequencies, reconstruction is not perfect on account of head shadowing effects, but it is quite good.
Now imagine the spaced omni playback. When the signals arrive at the listening position, there are substantial time shifts. This moves the tonal character around.
You do not have to take my word for this. Buy J. Boyk's(Performance Recordings) test CD. This is a straight forward test. Recordings were made of click sounds from a collection of identical speakers spaced along a line. It is analogous to my walking across the stage.
Blumlein plays back to locate the clicks correctly and ALL THE CLICKS HAVE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME TIMBRE. But the spaced omnis not only locate the clicks in the wrong places, they also makes teh clicks from different locations sound quite different in timbre.
Of course, three mikes(with three channel playback) would do better. And even more would do even better. Indeed according to Huygens' Principle from physics if one had infinitely many mikes and channels and playback speakers one would end up with... Blumlein actually, for all practical purposes.
I know it is complicated to compute what happens with more than two mikes(mixed to two channel playback), although it can be done.
But one really cannot get the comb filters out once they are in.
Moreover, the test is very convincing. Everyone interested in this subject really ought to get this CD and listen.
As to time difference stereo: yes of course time differences shift images. But these time differences in the spaced omni technique are FAR larger than the ones which occur naturally. In fact if one is anything but very far away, they are VERY FAR larger. The differences presented could not occur with a natural sound source ,exceeding as they do the max interaural time-of-difference from a natural source in any location at all(eg that directly to the side).It is not believable, and in my experience is not true, that such a thing produces anything like convincing and precise imaging.
Of course Blumlein erases the interaural time differences altogether. This might be expected to cause trouble(and it is one argument for ORTF--but not for spaced omnis which are over the top exaggerated in this regard). But surprisingly it seems not to. I have to go now but I discuss this point in my article on Boyk's test CD on my website www.regonaudio.com
To save me typing time I would be most grateful if everyone interested in this discussion would read that article before we continue.
Thank you,
Robert E. Greene
If three spaced omni microphones "produce a confused, colored, and inaccurate sonic picture" why are the most realistic sounding recordings (Telarc, Mercury Living Presense, RCA Living Stereo, etc.) made with spaced omni microphones?On my 2 channel stereo system recordings made with omni microphones produce and wide, deep and especially tall soundstage with each instrument clearly in it's space and the room surrounding it. Kavi made fun of my being able to hear pinpoint images from recordings made with omni mikes, well it's not just though speakers my Sennheiser HD-580 headphones produce a nice wide soundstage and with precise imaging. I will admit headphone imaging is a little weird as the soundstage is spread from the front of one's head to several feet behind the head and several feet on each side of the head, but quite believable non the less!
I would agree with the arguement that different peoples brains reconstruct the sonic clues differently from the finished recordings. But I think there is a reason that spaced omni's are the most popular microphones used in recording Audiophile Classical Orchestral music. Most listenings hear more realism with them.
I doubt that people really hear stereo imaging all that differently on the whole.(There are a small number of people,however, who do not hear stereo at all--they hear what is really there, namely two separate speakers. These people tend to like mono!)Let me try to approach this seriously: The ear/brain WANTS to locate sounds. It is a basic instinct. Almost anything that presents any locational information at all, even internally somewhat contradictory information will have the ear/brain giving a "best guess" type of image. It is just a survivial mechanism. It is best to use even fragemntary information to guess where the tiger is than to make no estimate of the tiger at all.
On the other hand, I really find it hard to believe that a person who has listened carefully to Blumlein recordings, which actually image, does not hear that there is a big difference from the spaced omnis. (Try the pure Blumlein Waterlily Mahler 5).
There are Mercuries I really like--Starker, Janis's Rachmaninoff 3--but the fact that I like them for musical reasons does not obscure the indequacies of the sound. Take the Rach 3. The piano is almsot as big as the orchestra! This is simply not a sound one could hear live--at any location at all. The vast blurry piano backed up by a not much larger(geometrically) orchestra where the first violins come out of the left speaker,etc.--it is just not real.
As to Telarc: nothing is anywhere very precisely. Big blurry sound always, no attacks, no location, no reality, not at all like the precise direct arrival sound followed by reflections and ambience of a real concert.
There is no accounting for tastes, but this sort of thing ,while one might like it, is most definitely not what real orchestras in real halls sound like.
In theoretical terms what you have said about bi directional mikes is true and is applicable more precisely to the ribbon types. Let us look at the two different types of mikes: ribbons and condensers. Nearly all the ribbion mikes are true bi directional (figure-of-eight) transdusers. Bi-directional of course reffering to the mike pick up pattern, while ribbon reffers to its working principal. And as the name implies, a thin corrugated aluminum ribbon is suspended between two magnets. Thus a ribbon mike is an electro dymanic transduser, while condenser reffers to a mike that has a "capsule" (one or half inch in diameter), a membrane strached over a circular frame that is polarised by a power source. Sound impinging on the capsule membrane modulates the charge through membrane movement, thus varing the capasitence. Thus its name, capacitor or condenser mike. Condenser mikes can have variable pick up patterns, such as omni, figure-of-eight and cardioid. Both types are a "compromise" and have their individual strengths and weeknesses.
Condencer mikes are prone to capsule (imagine a tambourine) resonance, which ribbons are free of. Often the electronics within a condenser mike will have some EQ built in to tame the capsule resonance. There is no free lunch!
The Coles mikes, which are true ribbons and thus have a figure-of-eight pick up pattern, have a far flatter frequency responce than the condencer U47 set to the omni pick up pattern. And should you compare them side by side, there is no doubt that the astute listener/music lover will pick the Coles over the U47, in terms of transparency and transient speed. The coles will have very good bass as well. (Check out the Kodo Drum CD from Sheffield Labs. This recording was done with one pair of Coles!)
The Pearl ELM 30 mikes that I use are true condenser mikes employing a very long (half inch X three inch) rectenguler capsule. This capsule design is unique to Pearl and was arrived at as a means to diminish capsule resonances. This mike, though a fixed figure-of-eight, has no compensating EQ (boost or cut) of any sort built into the electronics driving this capsule. The frequancy responce of the mike is plus or minus 2db from 20Hz to 18kHz and is 2db down at 20kHz. At the distences that I use it from the sound source, one yard to fifteen feet, there never is any problum of porximity effect.
Finaly, it is the implimentation and the results thereof that matter.
A couple of remarks about what you said.“Both types are a compromise”, you are referring to ribbons and condenser mic’s I believe, and if so, yes you are right. But every microphone is a compromise.
“Condenser mic’s are prone to capsule resonance”, yes you are right again, but to be more correct, every microphone, ribbon, coil or condenser mic, is prone to capsule resonance.
A more interesting question is where this resonance is located. For omnidirectional condenser microphones like the DPA 4006 or Schoeps mk2(s) this resonance is somewhere close or even above 20 kHz. (I do not consider a U47 to be a real omni since it is a far to complex microphone not suitable for a main pick-up and does certainly not match the modern omni microphones like the ones I just mentioned ). For directional microphones like the Pearl ELM 30, this resonance is located at the low midrange, around 200 Hz. This capsule resonance acts like the before mentioned LP filter. So to check what microphone has the most pronounced capsule resonance we can do a simple test. Please check your ribbon microphone if it suffers from handling noise, then do the same with a DPA 4006 or any other high quality condenser omni. From experience I can tell you that the DPA 4006 is free of any handling noise. This means that the capsule resonance is hardly an issue. I do not know if the same applies to your preferred Pearl ELM 30, but your main microphone is probably always installed in a shockmount, to absorb handling noise and rumble.
You also state that “often condenser microphones have some EQ build in”. I can tell you that I do not now any condenser microphone in our studio which has a EQ build in, also not hidden inside. We have about 200 Schoeps DPA and Neumann microphones, which I all have measured. The electronics only convert the appr. 1 GigaOhm capsule load down to a user-friendlier 50-200 Ohm output impedance.Funny that you mention the transient behaviour of your microphone. Have you ever tried to record a square wave with a directional microphone and compared that to the output of an omni? Any directional microphone will show a nice transient as a result of an acoustic pressure step from 0 to 1, but will return to zero immediately after the transient has past, although the acoustic pressure input is still at 1. When the acoustic pressure drops again from 1 to 0, the directional microphone will again give a nice transient response, but from 0 to –1 !! When looking at the output from the omni: it will rise from 0 to 1, stay at 1 for as long as it needs, and drops down from 1 to 0 when it has to.
I will not mention the implications of this transient behaviour on the phase response of any directional microphone.I must say that I find the membrane construction of the Pearl EML 30 really interesting. But due to its rectangular shape it will have a very unusual pick up pattern. In the horizontal plane it will behave like a figure of 8 should, but in the vertical plane it will behave completely different. In the vertical plane this microphone acts like an line pick up and as a result you will have a very coloured off-axis diffuse sound-field pick up including a comb-filter starting at 4.5 kHz upwards. This is truly a directional microphone and I can imagine some situations where this behaviour is welcome, but this is hardly the pick up (and sound colour) I would choose for my main microphone set-up.
A have nothings against the fact that you like the sound of the microphone, even when you say that this microphone delivers exactly the sound you hear in a concert hall, but I can also imagine that there are people who do not agree with you, and the physics prove them to be right.
I must admit that there is one aspect where the crossed fig of 8 excels compared to other microphone set-ups and that is pin-point stereo image accuracy (if you sit exactly on the sweet spot), but is this the most important aspect of a recording? I believe perfect inner balance and tonal balance to be much more important for the music then the question if the flute is situated 10 degrees left to the centre, or was it 15 degrees?
Jean-Marie Geijsen
After posting my last response to you I checked to see who you are and was stunned to learn that you work for Polyhymnia! I personaly belive that it is professional courtsy and common decancy not to go uninvited into another professionals realm and try to teach him your beliefs, no matter how technicaly supirior they maybe. I think it is the height of audacity! Now, I am not advocating suffering fools gladly, nor not defending ones position and views. Far from me to do suggest that, as you can see for yourself from my defence of my position on this site.
Your first posting was informative and welcome, but with the second one your "tone" decidedly shifts and takes on the "tone" of a preacher who is convinced that he alone has the ear of God!
Kenneth Welkinson nor Bob Fine, both of whom I deeply respect, even though I may not like aspects of their recordings and who had far greater knowledge than you AND have contributed far, far more to the music lover than you ever will, would never have stooped to what you have.
And yes, I have listened to some Polyhymnia recordings and sadly fail to hear the "perfect inner balance and tonal balance" that seems to be your Holy Grail. All I heard was utter confusion!
It is very clear that you like omni mikes from B&K and Shoeps and thus you will have a view (agenda?) based on your perferences. You like omnis and their inherant compromises and I like figure-of-eights and their inherent compromises.
I have used B&K (yes, I did try spaced omni techniques, Jecklin method to be exact!) and Shoeps mikes (obviously not all the models) in the past and passed on them, as I did not like the results stemming from the B&K and Shoeps "house sound".
But you have not tried the Pearl ELM 30s, but already are putting forth "theory" and drawing conclutions. This is a bad sign and I refuse to be drawn into another mad dual. Starting with a post that gave infromation, you have now gone onto personal taste, unfounded and unwanted criticism and propaganda! Experience is always better than theory. Try the Pearl mikes first, which by the way are not prone to handlnig noise. And where did I say that the Pearl mikes deliver the exact sound in the concert hall? From the very begining I have maintained that every recording is a personal "view" of the one making the recording, of the reality in a given venue. Neither did I claim perfection for the Pearl mikes, only a perference, like you have for the B&Ks and Shoeps.
So, the phase responce is not perfect with a figure-of-eight mike? How can one who proports spaced omni mike techniques, with which method phase coherance is unobtainable, even talk about phase accuracy?
So you admit that the U47, omni though it may be, is a very colored mike? This is what this whole thing is all about. And if you admit that the U 47 is a poor mike and thus cannot make uncolored and transparent recordings, then you must by extention, accept my contention that the Murcury and RCA recordings are colored.
And no, I do not use Coles mikes even though I admire their sonic virtues and purity. Have you ever tried them? Compared them to your darlings?
I have made over 75 recordings which have consistently been praised for their sonic excellence, in spite of the "flawed" mikes and mike technique that I choose to employ. The proof is always in the eating of the pudding. Should I need your advice, I will ask you. And where are the recordings with the "perfect inner balance and tonal balance" that you have made, so that we poor souls can be enlightened and uplifted? As for degrees, sorry I am not an initiated Mason and thus can not help you. As for physics proving things, I belive that it was indeed this very physics that conclusivly proved that President Kennady was shot by a lone gunman!
Carved on the door of a hermits cell: "Leave the sandals of your evryday persona and preconcived notians at the door. Enter with humility and remain silent. What you need to know is already within. It is the chatter of your mind that prevents you from preciving that you are indeed God". How true!!!
Never try to proselytize the "converted", for they know that THEY are going to heaven!
of the Polyhymnia recordings of the Philadelphia Orchestra (They have a contract with the PO). My opinion is that Kavi, you need not worry. Your recordings, and I have them on CD, are much more coherent and true to a real performance than anything I have heard from Polyhymnia thus far. I hear bass that is consonant with what I hear in real life, no upper bass hump as in too many recordings, but a true rendition down to the lowest registers which is both clean and true to true tonalities.
The Phily recordings of Polyhymnia are a travesty to the Orchestra. Everything is centered in the middle, the strings are out of phase to the winds, the sound is compressed to suck the life out of the music.
While I am no professional, I have been dabbling in live recordings of larger ensembles. Although I do use a set of omni's myself, I certainly do not get the problems I hear with Polyhymnia's recordings.I still remember the reason why Sheffield labs got out of the direct to disc recordings. TAS criticised their LA orchestral recordings and Doug Sax blew up. He pointed out that every critic wanted a center seat listening position and when he set up the mikes that way everyone panned his recordings. The sad truth is that most 'audiophiles' do not want a true recording of a real performance. They usually want a hyped up recording with details you won't and can't hear from a normal listening position. They want a perspective sometimes even a conductor can't heart (classic example is listening for the sustain on a set of cymbals!).
Stu
Like Kavi, just an island boy. As a caveat, I must point out that although I have never met the man, I have talked to him.
Thank you for telling it as it is!
[Posted by 128.241.111.21. This is added while posting a message via http://webwarper.net to avoid misuse of WebWarper. Example of using WebWarper: http://webwarper.net/ww/~av/www.AudioAsylum.com/forums/hirez/bbs.html ]
There are two different ways to judge a recording. One is to go in with a preconceived idea of what music sounds like or ought to sound like.
The other, to my mind right way is to look for recordings that are reflecting reality correctly.The truth is that the Waterlily Svetlanov/Skryabin recording and the other two recent Waterlily (SA)CDs are recordings of reality.
Perhaps any one person may not like the reality that was there, but it is still the reality.Of course, even Blumlein or other accurate(recorded at one listener position) stereo presentation of space is not QUITE total spatial realism, so one might prefer one form of stereo here to the other(the S/S is "phased array" stereo, the other two pure Blumlein). But to object to lack of bass ,say,or to claim there is no "midrange warmth" is just foolishness. (It is also totally unjustified in practice but that is not the point). There is as much bass on the recording as was actually there. The midrange sounds like the midrange that was there. And the microphone position where this reality was happening was carefully chosen.
A recording made with 8(or more) spaced-out microphones a la Wilcox may sound nice to some people, but it cannot sound real. There is no process in practice or in theory that can put the outputs of a lot spaced microphones together into a coherent reality.A lot of record companies are in the business of making such mosaic recordings, in an effort to follow some notion or another of what a recording ought to sound like. These recordings NEVER sound like real music--they can't and they don't.
Waterlily has a different idea:
recording reality.I personally think that the recorded reality is the only way to go.
It is the only thing that sounds like real music , and the higher the resolution of your audio system the more you will like it and the less you will like recordings made out of gluing together bits and pieces a la the Wilcox remarks. Those recordings sound not much more like a real thing than say the Beach Boys left/center/right mutiltrackers. The ear/brain is not easily led astray. It is not only not nice to fool Mother Nature, it is usually impossible.
I admit some interest here in these recordings beyond the consumer level--I worked on the surround mastering of the Mahler and Shost. and I was assistant producer on the Phildelphia Waterlily.
But I admired Waterlily recordings enormously long before I had any association with the company or even knew Kavi Alexander personally at all. In particular on my website www.regonaudio.com you can read my total rave ("A Sonic Spectacular from a Solo Violin" ) about a Waterlily written years ago when I had no association with Kavi A. at all.It seemed like both theoretical and actual reality to me then and does still, the method he uses.
Robert E. Greene
PS I think it is probably illegal to send the contents of an SACD around to members of a public forum without the publisher's permission. It is certainly immoral. If you are interested in these recordings, please buy them. I think you will be happy you did.
Robert,Thanks for posting – it’s always interesting to read the views of an insider on a controversial topic such as the quality of the latest series of Water Lily recordings. These spirited discussions certainly add spice to life!
I think some of your comments however may have been based on a hasty reading of my original post concerning the Max Wilcox / Teldec production of the Mehta / NY Philharmonic recording of Mahler’s Fifth Symphony. In addition, I have some other questions and comments, and I guess the most logical way to post them is to place them in the context of your original comments. So here goes:
“There are two different ways to judge a recording. One is to go in with a preconceived idea of what music sounds like or ought to sound like.
“The other, to my mind right way is to look for recordings that are reflecting reality correctly.”
Whoah! I think you’ve just loaded the dice. You mean to say that you do NOT have a preconceived notion of what the music ought to sound like? I’d guess that your idea of what the music ought to sound like would be based on YOUR perception (based in turn on your listening position in the hall) of the actual performances, but I’m certainly willing to be disabused of this notion.
“The truth is that the Waterlily Svetlanov/Skryabin recording and the other two recent Waterlily (SA)CDs are recordings of reality.
“Perhaps any one person may not like the reality that was there, but it is still the reality.”
I hope you’ll bear with me, but let’s do a little thought experiment here. Can you imagine several realities, one from where the conductor stands, another from a position a few feet away from the orchestra, another from a position midway back in the hall, and a fourth from way in the back of the hall. Which reality are you talking about? Can you imagine the reality of a position in the hall where the balance among the orchestra sections is wildly askew (vs. the reality at another position)? How bad would the reality have to be until it was not worth attempting to replicate on a recording?
[snip]. . . “the microphone position where this reality was happening was carefully chosen.”
I’d suggest that on your next recording project, you folks choose your microphone position a lot more carefully than you did on this one.
“A recording made with 8(or more) spaced-out microphones a la Wilcox may sound nice to some people, but it cannot sound real.”
Here’s where I think your reading of my original post was hasty. I don’t think anyone implied that the Wilcox recording sounded “nice”. (“Not entirely successful” was my actual phrase.) The point of my posting Wilcox’s comments (“early sound reflections from the rear of the stage favor the projection of the brass and percussion thus causing problems with the strings and winds”) was that this was exactly the type of sound I hear on the Water Lily Mahler Fifth. After all, if the reality was that there were indeed early reflections favoring the brass and percussion, I guess you can be proud that you’ve captured it, but you shouldn’t be surprised when some listeners aren’t impressed.
“There is no process in practice or in theory that can put the outputs of a lot spaced microphones together into a coherent reality.”
I’m confused here by your use of “a lot”. How many is “a lot”? Can it be as many as six? I believe that was the number used in the 1962 Reiner/Chicago Also sprach Zarathustra. To me, and, I daresay, to the majority of the readers of this board, that recording evokes a pretty darned coherent reality.
“A lot of record companies are in the business of making such mosaic recordings, in an effort to follow some notion or another of what a recording ought to sound like. These recordings NEVER sound like real music--they can't and they don't.”
As I stated above, I’d love to know what your threshold for “a lot” of microphones is. Six microphones is certainly OK with me, whether or nor someone else describes that as a “mosaic”. The Reiner recording I referenced above sure does sound like “real music” to me!
“Waterlily has a different idea: recording reality.
“I personally think that the recorded reality is the only way to go.
It is the only thing that sounds like real music , and the higher the resolution of your audio system the more you will like it and the less you will like recordings made out of gluing together bits and pieces a la the Wilcox remarks.”Wilcox did not make any remarks about “gluing together bits and pieces”. However, another point of my quoting him was that he was probably using FEWER microphones than on most orchestral recordings made these days, even though his recording, as I mentioned, was “not entirely successful”.
“Those recordings sound not much more like a real thing than say the Beach Boys left/center/right mutiltrackers. The ear/brain is not easily led astray. It is not only not nice to fool Mother Nature, it is usually impossible.”
I think that while Wilcox’s use of eight microphones may not have been optimal, it’s absurd to equate his techniques with those used for the Beach Boys. You undermine your own credibility here.
[snip]. . . “If you are interested in these recordings, please buy them. I think you will be happy you did.”
I did you one better: I bought TWO copies of the Water Lily Mahler Fifth, one CD-only and one SACD. While the SACD has (as expected) better definition at the mid and low frequencies than the CD, it has the same general flaws as the CD. Sure, it’s got coherence and consistency, but those are not the only elements of musical reality. In my eleven years of music reviewing for the Palo Alto Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and Oakland Tribune, I did occasionally encounter performances whose reality included mal-adjusted balances among different sections of the orchestra. These are not the realities I would wish to have preserved on recordings.
What Wilcox said, I belive is valid more in the case of an orchestra seated in the traditional arrangement. The seating arrangement of the Saint Petersburg Philharmonic however, is radicaly different form that of any other orchestra. The brass players sit hard right along the short dimention of the rectanguler stage, blowing ACCROSS the orchestra! The percussion is all the way in the back to the right. The strings are split: the first violins are on the right with the string bass, while the second violins are left of center, followed by the violas. The cellos are in the center followed by the woodwinds.
As for the mike placement, the one who records all the concerts of the SPPO complimented me for picking the spot I did and told me, that tests done by Soviet acousticians had indicated that very spot, where my mikes were, as having the ideal ratio of direct to reflected sound. KAVI.
Kavi,Thanks for posting and adding to our general knowledge about your series of St. Petersburg recordings.
I’m assuming that your description of the string placements is the opposite of what you meant. I certainly hear the first violins on the LEFT and the seconds on the RIGHT on the recording (as you face the orchestra, or the speakers).
Generally, I prefer recordings where the violins are split left and right, as in your recording. I still have a big problem with the balance, but I won’t go in to that again. Just let me say that if there is a wall behind the brass, even if they’re bunched together on the right, I don’t see why Wilcox’s remarks would still not apply. As I mentioned in a previous post, that’s something that every listener must judge for himself.
Despite my disappointment with this series of recordings, I would still like to commend you for your BRAVERY in even attempting to produce recordings which are not reconstituted by some dweeb in the control room. If only more companies had this kind of courage and will, we would all be better off (at least in the classical world)!
-Chris Salocks
(Take my opinions with a grain of salt – everything else being equal, I prefer DVD-Audio!)
Yes, you are right the first violins are on the LEFT and the second violins RIGHT of center. KAVI.
The seating arrangment of the Saint Petersburg Philharmonic was arrived at by the legendary Yevgeny Mravinsky, who for over 50 years "ruled" this great orchestra. Now, it would be the height of folly for someone like me to question a man of his knowledge and experience when it comes to matters of orchestal balance. What the mikes captured is what happens in the Great Hall during a performence. The mikes were placed 15 feet from the stage and 15 feet up. In reality the mikes were 10 feet above the orchestra. Any further back would have put the orchestral image "out of focus" and any further forward would have produced a sound that would be "in your face". Any further up would have, amoung other things, made the highs out of balance. Considering the 90 degree mike angle which had to encompass the whole orchestra, the stage dimention and hall reverbaration time, the mike placement was optimum as per my ears. KAVI.
Kavi,Thanks again for posting the additional information and philosophy.
I guess I need to reply point-by-point. I hope this is still interesting to other readers. At least there’s a lot of good information being exchanged! (The text of your post is in quotation marks.)
“The seating arrangment of the Saint Petersburg Philharmonic was arrived at by the legendary Yevgeny Mravinsky, who for over 50 years "ruled" this great orchestra. Now, it would be the height of folly for someone like me to question a man of his knowledge and experience when it comes to matters of orchestal balance.”
Gee, Kavi, I don’t know – seems to me you’re conflating seating arrangements and orchestral balance. And while seating arrangement does of course have some effect on orchestral balance, that particular seating arrangement does not seem to have been cast in cement, during Mravinsky’s tenure or afterwards. Look at the Rozhdestvensky/Leningrad Phil video of the Tchaikovsky Fourth from 1971. Mravinsky was still in charge then, yet Rozhdestvensky has both violin sections to the left, cellos on the right, and the brass straight back. Sure, I know what you’re thinking – that concert was given in London, not Leningrad. OK, fine. What about the Jansons / St. Petersburg recordings of the Rachmaninoff symphonies, c. 1994? Those were recorded in St. Petersburg and again, both violin sections are clearly to the left. (Any listener can hear this quite reliably in the Rachmaninoff Second Symphony, nine measures after figure one in the first movement, where the violas, second violins, and first violins successively ascend to those wonderful high C’s – an incredible inspiration on Rachmaninoff’s part!)
“What the mikes captured is what happens in the Great Hall during a performence.”
Actually, what the mikes captured is what happened in the Great Hall FROM THE VANTAGE POINT OF THE MIKES during this performance. Why is this concept so hard to understand?
“The mikes were placed 15 feet from the stage and 15 feet up. In reality the mikes were 10 feet above the orchestra.”
This is good information. May I suggest that you include such information in the booklet notes to your subsequent recording projects?
“Any further back would have put the orchestral image "out of focus" and any further forward would have produced a sound that would be "in your face". Any further up would have, amoung other things, made the highs out of balance.”
You must be aware that different listeners have differing notions of where the focal point for the microphones is. I understand why you would not want to place the microphones too closely. (You start capturing too much of the sound of individual stands rather than the whole section.) But speaking personally, I would have liked the sound to be a bit more “in your face”, and, no, I’m not trying to second-guess Mravinsky. In fact, if the microphones were closer, I suspect we would be hearing more the type of sound HE actually would have heard as he conducted.
“Considering the 90 degree mike angle which had to encompass the whole orchestra, the stage dimention and hall reverbaration time, the mike placement was optimum as per my ears.”
This is also an interesting question. Given all the constraints you were working under, is it possible that this hall is not optimal for recording? Even if it were a good hall, in the sense that it would be more forgiving of a wider range of minimalist microphone placements, people would still differ in their reaction to the final outcome on the finished recording. That’s the way people are. Why do you seem to be so offended by that?
If I may indulge myself a bit here, I’m sometimes asked by listeners who are just getting into classical music, “So what’s the best recording of [say] Mahler’s Fifth Symphony?” When I reply that there really is no one best recording of this work, and that different critics have different ideas as to which recording is superior, these listeners are shocked, and they start reacting as if I’m intentionally withholding information: “Oh come on! – There’s GOT to be a consensus!” So I give in, and reply, “Well, OK – a lot of critics seem to recommend Bernstein. But speaking for myself, I’d never recommend Bernstein as a first choice.” So there you go. The Romans knew all about this aspect of human nature:
De gustibus non est disputandem
-Chris Salocks
(Take my opinions with a grain of salt – everything else being equal, I prefer DVD-Audio!)
I do happen to know something about orchestral balance and human nature. Orchestral balance in a given hall, is a combination of the seating arrangment, hall acoustics, the dictates of the composer and the artistic disposition of the conductor. Those of us who make one point stereo recordings that entail no gimmickry, wherein we strive to capture the reality in a "documentary" style and do not impose our idea of balance via miking, panning and EQ, as all the majors invariably do, consider perserving the original balance in the given hall, at the time of recording, the Holy Grail.
Human nature being what it is, you are couching the obvious in such a manner so as to make look silly. Of course I know that what the mikes picked up would have been different in a different place! But I had made it clear as to WHY I had picked the chosen spot. And had you paid a little more attention you would notice that the CD comes with a 16 page booklet with excellent notes, including 3 pages on the recording.
You can certainly "do" a Lord Nelson by putting the telescope to the blind eye. That too is numan nature but hardly a balanced view!
Kavi,I think your last post did not have as much useful information in it as your previous posts did. Be that as it may, please allow me to respond. As usual, the excerpts from your posts are in quotation marks:
“I do happen to know something about orchestral balance and human nature. Orchestral balance in a given hall, is a combination of the seating arrangment, hall acoustics, the dictates of the composer and the artistic disposition of the conductor.”
. . . and, you might have added (if you’re recording the performance), the placement of the microphones!
“Those of us who make one point stereo recordings that entail no gimmickry, wherein we strive to capture the reality in a "documentary" style and do not impose our idea of balance via miking, panning and EQ, as all the majors invariably do, consider perserving the original balance in the given hall, at the time of recording, the Holy Grail.”
Please don’t take offense, but I’m going to use a reductio ad absurdum to get my point across. You say you do not impose your idea of balance via miking. But the very position at which you choose to place the microphones is an imposition of your idea of the balance! It’s a subjective judgement of where YOU think the most realistic balance is achieved – even if you have Russian acousticians to support your judgement. Now for the reductio ad absurdum: Suppose a producer got it into his head that the perfect place for his microphones was directly in front of the brass section, and that this placement was best at “preserving the original balance in the given hall”. Although the resulting recording would achieve a certain reality (yes, that’s how it sounded right in front of the brass section!), I’m sure that most listeners would not applaud that producer’s efforts. Some listeners might even have a PRECONCEIVED IDEA (based on their attendance at any number of orchestral concerts) that the strings ought to be more prominent in that recording, even though they did not attend the actual recording session.
OK, this crazy example is far from what we hear on your recording, but I hope you take my point. You can’t just go around proclaiming that you’re “preserving the original balance in the given hall”. What you’re really preserving is a certain balance from the vantage point of where you place the microphones.
At this point, let me stop and say, believe it or not, I’M ON YOUR SIDE (at least partially) – I don’t like tons of microphones sprouting up all over the place, with the balance reconstituted by (as I mentioned in another post) some dweeb in the control room. I think the difference between us is that I’m less doctrinaire about one point stereo recordings. When you have your minions implying that any other recording technique, even a relatively purist technique such as spaced omnis, doesn’t even sound like music, I think, in your heart, you know that’s not true. (Not that the other techniques don’t have limitations, but they can certainly be effective vehicles for the honest capture of a given performance.)
OK, back to your post. . .
“Human nature being what it is, you are couching the obvious in such a manner so as to make look silly.”
Believe me, this is not true. I’m just trying to get my points across. I’m actually frustrated with myself that I can’t be clearer sometimes.
“Of course I know that what the mikes picked up would have been different in a different place! But I had made it clear as to WHY I had picked the chosen spot. And had you paid a little more attention you would notice that the CD comes with a 16 page booklet with excellent notes, including 3 pages on the recording.”
After I read this part of your post, I scoured the Mahler Fifth program booklet once again. I may be overlooking the obvious, but I sure can’t find any section where the microphone placements (as you so kindly provided in your previous post) were stated. Since you brought up the subject of the program booklet, I agree there’s lots of excellent information therein. But I think you could have used a better graphic design and a more judicious choice of fonts. That’s just my opinion – I’m not pontificating, just offering some friendly advice.
“You can certainly "do" a Lord Nelson by putting the telescope to the blind eye. That too is numan nature but hardly a balanced view!”
Great quotation! I’d like to toss one back at you, and I’m on kind of a Latin kick today, so see if you think this quote from Varro will do:
Non omnes qui habent citharam sunt citharoedi [Not all who have a lyre are lyre players]
(Please don’t construe that as applying to you!)
-Chris Salocks
(Take my opinions with a grain of salt – everything else being equal, I prefer DVD-Audio!)
If we follow this logic then there should be no recording made at all, since the choice of mikes, mikes pre amps, cables and the recording medium will all impose their own color and character unto the original sound and will reflect the personal "taste" of the one who picked them! A recording is always the result of technical and artistic decisions made by the one who makes it. Yes, a very personal choice based on that persons priorities and the credence he gives to such matters as tonal purity, spatial cues/stereo image/instrument localization, overall sonic balance and dynamics. The original balance in the hall as perceived by the one who made the recording, how else could it be? Thus there is a Decca sound, an EMI sound, a Mercury sound and an RCA sound. It is my opinion that though entertaining, the "house sound" of these forementioned labels, are highly colored and in no way represent the real sound of an orchestra. Nevertheless, what needs to be kept in mind is that the difference between these "house sounds", that were deliberatly derived through a combination of mikes/miking technique and EQ/compression and the "purist" approch of say Water Lily, which has no "house sound" in that it is deliberatly arrived at as through a formula, but is rather the result of an attempt to capture the sound of an acoustical event as "accurately" as we know how. Now, our version of "accuracy" may not sit well with you, for this or that reason, but it can not be denied that the Water Lily approch is free of ornamentation, embelishment and artifice.
"My minions"? I find that utterly insulting and take offence.
Dr. Robert Greene is a professor of math and acoustics at UCLA and a dear and respcted friend and certainly no "minion" of mine. He is also a very accomplised violinist, with a vast amount of knowledge in matters audio and music.
And yes, me and my "minions" do by far prefer single point stereo recordings for the simple reason, that to our ears they tend to be much more realistic. Spaced omni recordings, even with just two mikes, just do not produce the precise stereo image that we prefer and they do also introduce colorations due to comb filter effects that single point stereo pairs are free of. If you and others like you prefer the sound of spaced omni recordings, that is your choice. But certainly not mine. I find ALL spaced omni recordings, old and new, employing two or more mikes, to be utterly confusing. Since the ability to spatialy localize sounds varies with individuals and is partly based on their pinna structure, with some people utterly incapable of preceving stereo at all, it is very likly that some of us are more accutly sensitive to the spatial "deformation" caused by spaced omni mike techniques.
So now we have come around to even commenting on the layout/art work?! Let me just put it to you bluntly, in case you forgot to read the credits, the cover has a reproduction of a Wassily Kandinsky painting courtesy of the Hermitage.
I never mastered my Latin in boarding school, but I do love the Persian Sufi poest Rumi who once said "Counterfiet exists because there is such a thing as real Gold". How appropriate!
Kavi,I fear this discussion is becoming less and less interesting and informative for other readers. By now, everyone who’s followed so far knows the routine: the parts from your post are in quotation marks.
“If we follow this logic then there should be no recording made at all, since the choice of mikes, mikes pre amps, cables and the recording medium will all impose their own color and character unto the original sound and will reflect the personal "taste" of the one who picked them! A recording is always the result of technical and artistic decisions made by the one who makes it. Yes, a very personal choice based on that persons priorities and the credence he gives to such matters as tonal purity, spatial cues/stereo image/instrument localization, overall sonic balance and dynamics. The original balance in the hall as perceived by the one who made the recording, how else could it be?”
Wait a minute – You’re agreeing with ME now! I was the one who argued that microphone placements, etc., were subjective judgements. I thought you and your minions : - ) were arguing that you were capturing THE reality with your documentary approach, as if it could only be done your way. (Go back and look at the previous posts.)
“Thus there is a Decca sound, an EMI sound, a Mercury sound and an RCA sound. It is my opinion that though entertaining, the "house sound" of these forementioned labels, are highly colored and in no way represent the real sound of an orchestra.”
As I mentioned before, you and your minions : - ) are a bit doctrinaire in this regard. I’m just guessing, but I’d say that most readers of this board would not agree with you that the sound on the labels you mention “in no way represent[s] the real sound of an orchestra”. (I assume we’re talking about the golden age of the Deccas, EMI’s, and RCA’s.) By the way, and here’s where my memory is a little foggy, I think I remember reading that SOME EMI recordings were actually made with the Blumlein technique. (Perhaps another reader could nail this bit of information down?)
“Nevertheless, what needs to be kept in mind is that the difference between these "house sounds", that were deliberatly derived through a combination of mikes/miking technique and EQ/compression and the "purist" approch of say Water Lily, which has no "house sound" in that it is deliberatly arrived at as through a formula, but is rather the result of an attempt to capture the sound of an acoustical event as "accurately" as we know how.”
So . . . when I read in any number of booklets with the Mercury CD’s (I’m looking at the Richard Strauss / Dorati booklet right now) quotes such as “. . . the recording session began in earnest, and from that time on there was no tampering with the controls of the recording machines which were putting the sound on tape – no boosting of pianissimos, no compressing of fortissimos, no disturbing of balances”, we have it on your authority that Mercury is lying? Actually, for someone who takes offense so easily, you’re pretty free with your dismissals of other companies’ efforts.
“Now, our version of "accuracy" may not sit well with you, for this or that reason, but it can not be denied that the Water Lily approch is free of ornamentation, embelishment and artifice.”
-But not free of subjective decision making – just like any other recording company!
“"My minions"? I find that utterly insulting and take offence.
Dr. Robert Greene is a professor of math and acoustics at UCLA and a dear and respcted friend and certainly no "minion" of mine. He is also a very accomplised violinist, with a vast amount of knowledge in matters audio and music.”Use of that term was meant to be humorous. You’ll notice that I used happy faces earlier in this post to avoid misunderstanding. (Dr. Greene – This is Dr. Salocks. I hope you were not insulted!)
“And yes, me and my "minions" do by far prefer single point stereo recordings for the simple reason, that to our ears they tend to be much more realistic. Spaced omni recordings, even with just two mikes, just do not produce the precise stereo image that we prefer and they do also introduce colorations due to comb filter effects that single point stereo pairs are free of. If you and others like you prefer the sound of spaced omni recordings, that is your choice. But certainly not mine. I find ALL spaced omni recordings, old and new, employing two or more mikes, to be utterly confusing.”
I think we both agree (well, maybe not!) that no recording technique is perfect. Again, I would surmise that most listeners in this forum are not confused by most spaced omni recordings, even though you say you are.
“Since the ability to spatialy localize sounds varies with individuals and is partly based on their pinna structure, with some people utterly incapable of preceving stereo at all, it is very likly that some of us are more accutly sensitive to the spatial "deformation" caused by spaced omni mike techniques.”
Let’s look at this statement from another angle: Is it possible that some listeners, because of their pinna structure and mental wiring, are able to localize sounds even in recordings which may seem “utterly confusing” to others?
“So now we have come around to even commenting on the layout/art work?! Let me just put it to you bluntly, in case you forgot to read the credits, the cover has a reproduction of a Wassily Kandinsky painting courtesy of the Hermitage.”
OK, OK! – I’ll remember: next time I want to ensure impeccable graphic design, I’ll put a reproduction of a Wassily Kandinsky painting on the booklet cover. That certainly simplifies the whole process of graphic design!
“I never mastered my Latin in boarding school, but I do love the Persian Sufi poest Rumi who once said "Counterfiet exists because there is such a thing as real Gold". How appropriate!”
To tell you the truth, I never mastered my Latin in boarding school either. Actually, I never went to boarding school. But I’m still on kind of a Latin kick today, so here’s another one (from Virgil) for you:
Experto credite [Trust the expert]
(Yes, but then we have to decide whether it’s a real expert or a would-be expert!)
-Chris Salocks
(Take my opinions with a grain of salt – everything else being equal, I prefer DVD-Audio!)
Please read what you have written. What is being discribed is that no gain riding (passive compression) was done and that no balance adjustments were made. In the three mike setup that Mercury employed, the center mike feed was attenuated a few db and split into two and fed to the left and right mike feeds. This mix was fed to the two track Ampx 300. Later when they started using the mag film recorders, they recorded onto three individual tracks and at the time of LP mastering, mixed the three tracks to two.
No mention what-so-ever about EQ!!!
For someone who talks so much about recordings you seem to know very little about the art of recording. Had you knowen enough about this subject you would not have said what you did and I would not have to post this. You would have knowen that the discription in the Mercury CD booklet was solely about gain riding (passive EQ) and balance. Perhaps you had no idea what gain riding was untill now! No matter if it is a Mercury LP or CD, they were both made from the same master and thus subject to the same EQ/commpression, if applied at the time of recording. And what makes you think that there was no EQ applied at the time of the CD mastering?! Did Wilma consult with you?
Further, your outright dismissal of a well knowen fact: that the classic tube mikes, yes, the very same models with the far from flat responce usad by Mercury, Decca, RCA and EMI, are still used in the pop/rock studios and often as vocal mikes for the pop "divas", shows that you are the one who is being cavalier. Your statetment "divas do not use omni", again proves what I have said above: you know very little about this subject. These mikes in question are not fixed omnis, but variable pattern mikes! I had mentioned the Coles, just to show that there was a truly flat and transparent mike around at the time Mercury, RCA and Decca made the recordings that are worshiped the faithful. Of course, the Coles being a ribbon mike and thus a true figure-of-eight transducer, perfect for Blumlein and MS recordings, was of no use to the spaced omni gang. And no, I do not use Coles mikes. Had you read the CD booklet throughly you would have noted this fact. Who is being hasty in is comments?
Looks as if Kavi posted this message twice. (I'm losing track of all his postings.) So I'll respond twice. His comments are in quotation marks.“For someone who talks so much about recordings you seem to know very little about the art of recording. Had you knowen enough about this subject you would not have said what you did and I would not have to post this. You would have knowen that the discription in the Mercury CD booklet was solely about gain riding (passive EQ) and balance. Perhaps you had no idea what gain riding was untill now! No matter if it is a Mercury LP or CD, they were both made from the same master and thus subject to the same EQ/commpression, if applied at the time of recording. And what makes you think that there was no EQ applied at the time of the CD mastering?! Did Wilma consult with you?”
Here Kavi is so desperate to make his points that he conveniently overlooks readily available information on the internet, such as the interview with Robert Eberenz, where Eberenz states the following (regarding the Mercury recording process): “between the microphone and the tape machine itself, we had very little of any electronics. We had no equalization [I wonder if this is clear enough for Kavi?], no devices of any kind between the microphone and the tape machine. All we had was a fader, set level; a line amplifier, which was a Pultec MB2 classic amplifier known to every studio in the world.” Well, perhaps that leaves a little bit open to question, so let me refer to a conversation I had with Harold Lawrence. (He was over at my house to make some recordings in my living room – and guess what microphone technique he used? Crossed-pair figure-eights!) Anyway, in our discussion after the recording, HL (as I’ll refer to him from now on) said he was very proud of the fact that no equalization or compression was employed in the Mercury recordings. (No gain riding is of course a given.)
Off the subject, but possibly of general interest to readers: In response to my comment that Antal Dorati seemed like a less interesting conductor once he left Mercury and began his relationship with Decca/London (who had mostly abandoned their classic sound by the time they were recording Dorati, with spot microphones mushrooming up all over the place), HL said that Dorati later confided to him that he was aware of this phenomenon, as more a more of the recorded performance was taken out of his hands and put into the control room, and was distressed by it. Of course this is third-hand information (but only second-hand information to me!).
Back on to the subject: so, if the master is on the tape, and there was no equalization or compression applied, and no devices of any kind between the microphone and the tape machine, that sure doesn’t leave much room for equalization except for LP mastering. Now, I could be wrong about this, but I recall reading that Wilma did make new PCM masters for the series of CD’s that came out. And I know for sure that someone (not Wilma) made new DSD masters for the SACD’s which are now coming out.
On to Kavi’s next desperate point:
“Further, your outright dismissal of a well knowen fact: that the classic tube mikes, yes, the very same models with the far from flat responce usad by Mercury, Decca, RCA and.) EMI, are still used in the pop/rock studios and often as vocal mikes for the pop "divas", shows that you are the one who is being cavalier. Your statetment "divas do not use omni", again proves what I have said above: you know very little about this subject. These mikes in question are not fixed omnis, but variable pattern mikes!”
So now Kavi is claiming that divas do use omnis? As I said, I would be very surprised. (OK, maybe on a rare occasion.) The fact that many tube microphones used today have switchable pick-up patterns isn’t relevant at all. Mercury was using omnidirectionals (or omnidirectional pick-up patterns). And, truth to tell, I have not been able to verify that the Telefunken (actually Schoeps, Telefunken was apparently just the distributor) 201 (the microphone used in the vast majority of Mercury stereo recordings) even has a selectable pick-up pattern. The descriptions I’ve seen refer to it as omnidirectional only. I could be missing some information here, but no matter – it’s not relevant. Mercury used it as an omnidirectional. By the way, the fact that Schoeps microphones were used (even though they’re identified as Telefunkens in the booklet notes) was another piece of info first mentioned to me by HL – I was surprised.
“I had mentioned the Coles, just to show that there was a truly flat and transparent mike around at the time Mercury, RCA and Decca made the recordings that are worshiped the faithful. Of course, the Coles being a ribbon mike and thus a true figure-of-eight transducer, perfect for Blumlein and MS recordings, was of no use to the spaced omni gang. And no, I do not use Coles mikes. Had you read the CD booklet throughly you would have noted this fact. Who is being hasty in is comments?”
Yup – here, I say mea culpa! I plead guilty. Kavi pulled a fast one on me – I thought he was referring to the microphones he used on his latest recordings and I didn’t re-check the booklet. Of course, when Kavi got the position of the first and second violins on his own recording backwards, I suppose I could have admonished him to read his own booklet (thoroughly!), but I didn’t.
Here’s what it all comes down to: Kavi made an extravagant statement to the effect that the natural variations in microphone frequency response amount to a deliberate form of equalization in the case of Mercury, Decca, EMI, and RCA recordings. But these variations are the natural by-products of ANY recording, even (gasp!) Water Lily’s, and are not what most listeners commonly understand when they hear that a company has deliberately employed equalization. So perhaps Kavi should define his terms.
You know, I’m liking that quote from Virgil more and more now!
-Chris Salocks
(Take my opinions with a grain of salt – everything else being equal, I prefer DVD-Audio!)
For someone who talks so much about recordings you seem to know very little about the art of recording. Had you known enough about this subject you would not have said what you did and I would not have to post this. You would have known that the discription in the Mercury CD booklet was solely about gain riding (passive EQ) and balance. Perhaps you had no idea what gain riding was untill now! No matter if it is a Mercury LP or CD, they were both made from the same analog master and thus subject to the same EQ/commpression, if applied at the time of recording. And what makes you think that there was no EQ applied at the time of the CD mastering?! Did Wilma consult with you?
Further, your outright dismissal of a well known fact: that the classic tube mikes, yes, the very same models with the far from flat responce usad by Mercury, Decca, RCA and EMI, are still used in the pop/rock studios and often as vocal mikes for the pop "divas", shows that you are the one who is being cavalier. These mikes are sought out today for the very reason that they ARE colored, it is this very aspect that makes them great vocal mikes, as the pop "divas" need all the help they can get to sound half way decent. The inherent tube "warmth" and boosted mid/high responce of these mikes, coupled with the resulting proximity effect (more mid band boost!) stemming from the close miking will make even you sound sweet! Your statetment "divas do not use omni", again proves what I have said above: you know very little about this subject. These mikes in question are not fixed omnis, but variable pattern mikes! I had mentioned the Coles, just to show that there was a truly flat and transparent mike around at the time Mercury, RCA and Decca made the recordings that are worshiped by the faithful. Of course, the Coles being a ribbon mike and thus a true figure-of-eight transducer, perfect for Blumlein and MS recordings, was of no use to the spaced omni gang. And no, I do not use Coles mikes. Had you read the CD booklet throughly you would have noted this fact. Who is being hasty in is comments?
So I get home a little late from work (busy day!). . . and here’s yet another post from Kavi waiting for me. I guess I have to slog through these things. (Excerpts from his post(s) are in quotation marks.)“For someone who talks so much about recordings you seem to know very little about the art of recording. Had you knowen enough about this subject you would not have said what you did and I would not have to post this. You would have knowen that the discription in the Mercury CD booklet was solely about gain riding (passive EQ) and balance. Perhaps you had no idea what gain riding was untill now! No matter if it is a Mercury LP or CD, they were both made from the same master and thus subject to the same EQ/commpression, if applied at the time of recording. And what makes you think that there was no EQ applied at the time of the CD mastering?! Did Wilma consult with you?”
Here Kavi is so desperate to make his points that he conveniently overlooks readily available information on the internet, such as the interview with Robert Eberenz, where Eberenz states the following (regarding the Mercury recording process): “between the microphone and the tape machine itself, we had very little of any electronics. We had no equalization [I wonder if this is clear enough for Kavi?], no devices of any kind between the microphone and the tape machine. All we had was a fader, set level; a line amplifier, which was a Pultec MB2 classic amplifier known to every studio in the world.” Well, perhaps that leaves a little bit open to question, so let me refer to a conversation I had with Harold Lawrence. (He was over at my house to make some recordings in my living room – and guess what microphone technique he used? Crossed-pair figure-eights!) Anyway, in our discussion after the recording, HL (as I’ll refer to him from now on) said he was very proud of the fact that no equalization or compression was employed in the Mercury recordings. (No gain riding is of course a given.)
Off the subject, but possibly of general interest to readers: In response to my comment that Antal Dorati seemed like a less interesting conductor once he left Mercury and began his relationship with Decca/London (who had mostly abandoned their classic sound by the time they were recording Dorati, with spot microphones mushrooming up all over the place), HL said that Dorati later confided to him that he was aware of this phenomenon, as more a more of the recorded performance was taken out of his hands and put into the control room, and was distressed by it. Of course this is third-hand information (but only second-hand information to me!).
Back on to the subject: so, if the master is on the tape, and there was no equalization or compression applied, and no devices of any kind between the microphone and the tape machine, that sure doesn’t leave much room for equalization except for LP mastering. Now, I could be wrong about this, but I recall reading that Wilma did make new PCM masters for the series of CD’s that came out. And I know for sure that someone (not Wilma) made new DSD masters for the SACD’s which are now coming out.
On to Kavi’s next desperate point:
“Further, your outright dismissal of a well knowen fact: that the classic tube mikes, yes, the very same models with the far from flat responce usad by Mercury, Decca, RCA and.) EMI, are still used in the pop/rock studios and often as vocal mikes for the pop "divas", shows that you are the one who is being cavalier. Your statetment "divas do not use omni", again proves what I have said above: you know very little about this subject. These mikes in question are not fixed omnis, but variable pattern mikes!”
So now Kavi is claiming that divas do use omnis? As I said, I would be very surprised. (OK, maybe on a rare occasion.) The fact that many tube microphones used today have switchable pick-up patterns isn’t relevant at all. Mercury was using omnidirectionals (or omnidirectional pick-up patterns). And, truth to tell, I have not been able to verify that the Telefunken (actually Schoeps, Telefunken was apparently just the distributor) 201 (the microphone used in the vast majority of Mercury stereo recordings) even has a selectable pick-up pattern. The descriptions I’ve seen refer to it as omnidirectional only. I could be missing some information here, but no matter – it’s not relevant. Mercury used it as an omnidirectional. By the way, the fact that Schoeps microphones were used (even though they’re identified as Telefunkens in the booklet notes) was another piece of info first mentioned to me by HL – I was surprised.
“I had mentioned the Coles, just to show that there was a truly flat and transparent mike around at the time Mercury, RCA and Decca made the recordings that are worshiped the faithful. Of course, the Coles being a ribbon mike and thus a true figure-of-eight transducer, perfect for Blumlein and MS recordings, was of no use to the spaced omni gang. And no, I do not use Coles mikes. Had you read the CD booklet throughly you would have noted this fact. Who is being hasty in is comments?”
Yup – here, I say mea culpa! I plead guilty. Kavi pulled a fast one on me – I thought he was referring to the microphones he used on his latest recordings and I didn’t re-check the booklet. Of course, when Kavi got the position of the first and second violins on his own recording backwards, I suppose I could have admonished him to read his own booklet (thoroughly!), but I didn’t.
Here’s what it all comes down to: Kavi made an extravagant statement to the effect that the natural variations in microphone frequency response amount to a deliberate form of equalization in the case of Mercury, Decca, EMI, and RCA recordings. But these variations are the natural by-products of ANY recording, even (gasp!) Water Lily’s, and are not what most listeners commonly understand when they hear that a company has deliberately employed equalization. So perhaps Kavi should define his terms.
You know, I’m liking that quote from Virgil more and more now!
-Chris Salocks
(Take my opinions with a grain of salt – everything else being equal, I prefer DVD-Audio!)
Since the dog is still barking let me start by quoting from the Sufi tradition again: " The dog that ran between two wells, unable to decide which one to drink from, finaly died not of thirst but of exhaustion!".
In the very fine article publised in TAS by Michael Gray (issue 60, vol 14) on the Mercury sound, it is stated that when Mercury switched to stereo, Bob Fine used three Neumann U 47 tubes mikes. The very same mikes that today (though no longer made) are highly sought after by the Pop/rock studios for use as (mostly) vocal mikes. This is a fact, even though you do not get what I am trying to say. These mikes could be used either as cardioids or omnis (switchable!). The fact that Mercury used these mikes in the omni setting and current studio practice is to use it in the cardioid setting (not the case) dose in no way make what I have maintained incorrect. The very same model (U 47) mikes used by Mercury are also used today as a vocal mikes in the pop/rock studios, no matter what your stance.
Now, that very informative artical in TAS also gives the frequency responce of the U 47. They are 5db down at 50Hz, have a 5db dip between 2 and 4kHz and a 9db peak at 10kHz!!! THIS IS NOT A FLAT RESPONCE MIKE. If Mercury did not EQ, then the resulting recorings employing the U47 mikes will end up being highly colored. They do indeed sound highly colored (in spite of the EQ that I maintain was used) and if you want to belive that thses recordings are realistic, that is your problum. Yes, let us not forget, you are the one who is not bothered by a five foot long image of a violn! And you want to talk about realistic sound?! My objection to these recordings being touted as the holy grail is based on this fact (high degree of coloration) and the fact that they do not have stable imaging, due to the chosen mike technique. I have NEVER said they were BAD. I buy and enjoy them for what they do best: a "spectaculer" persentation of the sound with great dynamics. Unrealistic as hell, but exciting and fun.
At some point, Bob Fine switched from using the U 47 mikes to the Shoeps 201M, which also could be switched. This was used as the center mike and was flanked by a pair of Neumann KM 56s. Now, the responce of the 201M was better than that of a U 47, but still no cigar!. It was flat from 30Hz to 2kHz from whence is rose to a 7db(!) peak at 10kHz. As for the KM 56, no responce is given, but based on my knowledge (though admittedly small) of vintage Neumann tube mikes, I would say that they too had a responce similer to the U 47. So pundit, here is my question: if Mercury did not EQ the mikes which were far from flat, how can you tell me that these recordings are of reference quality? Look at the responce curve, 5db(!) down at 50Hz, a 5db(!) dip in the critical 2 to 4db region and a 9db(!) peak at 10kHZ. Or are you going to agree with me that EQ was indeed used during LP mastering, as I have maintained? The TAS artical says that EQ was indeed employed at the time of LP mastering. Keep in mind what happened to the dog mentioned above.
As for my comments about EMI, I admit that I may have not been clear, so I will state my case again: I prefer the EMI "house sound" to that of Murcury, RCA and Decca as it comes "closer to the real thing", IN COMPARISON to the "house sound" of the other three mentioned and NOT IN ABSOLUTE TERMS.
I need not waste my time doing a web search to find out who you are. Your postings reveal to me all that I need to know about you! Prattling opinions is not contributing to the enrichment and upliftment of the music lover. I mean significant contributions, like that which TAS has made, wherein music lovers can learn things of real value, such as the horrid sound of early digital, the real sonic difference between tubes /transistors and analog/digital, a discriptive language to express sonic colors and sound induced aural experiences, outright donations from add revenues to small record lables to further the art of recording and music, as well as the numerous articals about sound and music, such as the excellent series on Mercry, Decca, RCA and EMI.
Well, folks, time for me to disengage.Kavi and I are now going around in circles, rehashing the same claims and counterclaims. The trouble with engaging in discussion with a blowhard, prone to extravagant, reckless hyperbole, delivered with sneering, barely literate sarcasm, is that one has to be on guard not to descend into the same methods of argument or factual presentation. I admit I haven’t always avoided this descent myself, especially in yesterday’s posts – but I now caution myself to avoid these cheap techniques.
So, if I may summarize the post above:
Kavi presents a description of Mercury’s recording techniques based on information which he evidently read in a TAS article. My information is based on a published interview with Robert Eberenz as well as my conversation with Harold Lawrence – two folks who actually participated in the Mercury recording sessions (in fact, the only two who were present for all the Mercury stereo recording sessions – not Wilma, and not Bob). Some of Kavi’s information and my information are at odds. For another example of this, here’s another Eberenz quote concerning which microphones were actually used at the Mercury recording sessions: “. . . when we went to stereo, the U47 was the center mike and they filled on the left and right with the Telefunken 201 microphone. . . We used those and the Telefunken KM 56s. We tried those for awhile. Then, when we finally we got enough 201s, we used nothing but 201s thereafter.” So what I’d like to know is, where did TAS get its information? Where did Kavi get his information (if it was anything beyond the TAS article)? Can Kavi name just one pop diva who uses a 201 microphone? (And remember that I never said this was impossible, just that I’d be surprised.)
As for equalization, Kavi’s initial assertion that equalization was employed in Mercury recordings is clearly refuted by the Eberenz interview excerpt I posted yesterday. As for equalization for LP mastering, yes, I’ve never disputed that assertion since Kavi first proclaimed it. And of course, LP equalization has always been irrelevant to the subject at hand. (Remember, I was originally quoting from the CD booklet – I got rid of all my LP’s when the horrid sound of early digital first burst upon the scene.) Anyone, even would-be pundits, can check previous posts on these points.
I’ll skip the last two points in Kavi’s note.
So, Kavi, as the hippies say, it’s been real!
-Chris Salocks
(Take my opinions with a grain of salt – everything else being equal, I prefer DVD-Audio!)
In the midst of all the discussion, somehow an essential point made by Kavi A. seems to have been a bit glossed over later on. The mikes used in the "Golden Age" recordings by RCA and Mercury were VERY FAR FROM FLAT. RCA played with EQ to try to fix this. AS I understand it, Mercury at least claimed not to do any EQ. But without EQ, an accurate recording using a far from flat microphone is NOT POSSIBLE. And indeed the Mercuries sound very colored to anyone who has an ear for such things. Actually the RCAs sound colored,too--whatever EQ they did did not work out all that well. There is really no doubt about this(actually, I wrote about the treble peak in my very first TAS article, more than 20 years ago--long ago if not far away.) You may like the Mercuries, but thye are most definitely no truthful to any reality anywhere in the hall where they were made--or anywhere else for that matter. (Nine and ten dB peaks at 10 k are not a feature of natural sound in any listening position whatever.)
I forgot to add that you do really think very highly of yourself and your work! What makes you think that the members of this forum are following the the superior logic (the very logic that has me tied in a knot!) of your geart mind? Do you think they care? And further, you assume that by writing the stuff you do, you are contributing to the enrichment of the music lover? All this arrogance from someone that has not done ONE worthwhile thing to enrich and uplift the music loving public. Look at your very listing... once wrote some sleeve notes, once performed at Lincoln Center, once was a reviewer for an audio/music related web site and let us not forget the crowning moment, Harold Lawrence once making a recording in your living room...
Oh, and we must not forget the bay area news papers either for which you write... or was that wrote?
Sounds pretty desperate to me.
So Kavi made the effort to click on my moniker. Yet, as in so many of his previous posts, he can’t even get the basic facts right. Click again, Kavi!-Chris Salocks
(Take my opinions with a grain of salt – everything else being equal, I prefer DVD-Audio!)
As one who knows not his left from his right, nothing of ochestral balance, literate discourse, logic, Latin, pitch and Lincoln from Kennady, it is very possible that I could not tell the difference between the Neumann U 47s and the Pearl ELM 30s and inadvertently used the U 47s in Saint Petersburg! This would of course explain the lack of bass Teresa is complaining about!
I must say your listing is pathetic to say the least.
Not only are you apperently deaf, since you can not hear the colorations inherent in the Mercury recordings, you seem to be blind as well. READ AGAIN. I said Neumann U 47. The mike used by Mercury and that which today is favoured in the pop/rock world as a vocal mike. No matter what you say, Murcury DID use the U 47 for a long while, as did RCA. When they switched to the Schoeps 201M, Fine did not have three of these at that time and used the Neumann KM 56s on the sides. It is very possible that at a later date they obtained two more and used only 201Ms. Nevertheless, my original question to you remains valid, all Neumann or all Schoeps, or a combination thereof, how dose one make natural sounding recordings with mikes that have no flat responce?
The editor of TAS, Harry Pearson is a close friend of Wilma Cozart and she did read the TAS. Had there been errors, she would have certainly pointed them out to her friend the editor. And Wilma Cozart was the boss of the two you mention and had a far more importent role in record making process.
"I would not give you to my dog for its dinner." Lord Hastings to a subordinte in the army.
YOU started all this nonsense, not I. You in effect attacked my credibility in a public forum on an issue on which many others, including some experts, have a contrary view/opinion. You have the right to criticise and I have the right to defend myself. I do not agree with you but will simply state my case.
What I have stated from the begining and made very clear, is that the "reality" that Water Lily captures is determined by me and thus my "view". I do hold however, that our view is valid as it is based on a theoratical model that is very sound.
You may know all this, but I am sure that there are some readers who will benefit from the information to be outlined below. The spaced omni mike technique was born out of the research done at Bell Labs in the 20s. Their experiments with Stoky and The Philadelphia Orchestra, wherin rows of mikes placed before the orchesta were in turn linked to corresponding speakers, showed that in effect the same resuls could be achived with just three spaced omni mikes. This "wall of sound" technique was then pioneered by Bert at Everst and addopted by Mercury, Command and much later Telarc. The Bell Labs model was to place the three mikes very close to the orchestra, thus avoiding much reflected sound pick up and then play back the recording in a large, live room, allowing the speaker/room acoustical interaction to provide the "ambiance". The physical nature of this mike placement entails that sounds on the right will reach the right mike before the center and left mikes. So it will be for sound sources on the left. It is this time delay that prevents this mike technique from being able to create a stable stereo image with precise instumental localisation. These time delays also cause a phenomeon knowen as comb filer effects that will further color the sound. There are those who argue that since onmi mikes are in effect directional in the high frequancies (a fact) that the three spaced omni technique can yeild stable, precise images. I have yet to hear this miracle!
The genius of Blumlein is that he realised that the recordeing should capture and presrve the spatial/ambiant information as well. Further, in his mike arrangment, wherein two figure-of-eight mikes are placed coincidentaly, both mikes sample all sounds at the same point in space and thus are phase and amplitude coherent, yeilding precise stereo images and accurate instumantal localisation.
Mercury may not have EQed nor compressed (except for the medium itself doing it) while recording, but they certainly EQed and compressed while mastering the LP. And I am not reffering to the mandatory RIAA EQ required for LP mastering. Also keep in mind that the German tube mikes they (RCA, Decca and EMI as well) used were far from being flat. Thus, this would have to be considerd a form of EQ as well. To this day some of these tube mikes are highly sought after by the pop studios, as they produce a "fat" warm sound that "enhances" the vocals of the popular "divas". The BBC designed Coles ribbon mikes on the other hand are far more nutral and flatter than any of these tube mikes.
Yes, EMI did use the classic Blumlein technique for a very, very short time. (There is an interview forthcoming in TAS wherein I go into all this in great depth and detail.) I have always preferred the EMI "house sound", even after they had abandoned the Blumlein technique. To me the EMI sound was closer to the real thing than that on any Mercury, RCA or Decca recording.
And yes, I will be the first to admit that no recording is "perfect" (limits of technology) and is an exact replica of the musical reality, but some recorings do come convinsingly close. To my ears those recordings are the ones done with coincident and near coincident mike techniques.
As for listeners who have extraordinary pinna structures and are "wired" in such a way, so as to hear "pin point" stereo images from spaced omni recordings, I can only say that not having mastered hyper dimentional physics, this rarefied subject is way out of my league and will have to be reffered to the experts at Area 51. Please drive out into the Nevada desert with Teresa... who knows, you just might hear the sound of "one hand slapping"!
I refuse to comment further on the layout/artwork issue as it is not really germane to the subject at hand.
Again, not having mastered Latin I must revert to the Sufi tradition that I am familer with for my quote: "The dog may bark, but the caravan moves on..." KAVI.
Kavi,Now we’re back to getting some useful information from you. Thanks! Once again, the excerpts from your latest post are in quotation marks:
“YOU started all this nonsense, not I. You in effect attacked my credibility in a public forum on an issue on which many others, including some experts, have a contrary view/opinion. You have the right to criticise and I have the right to defend myself. I do not agree with you but will simply state my case.”
That’s the great thing about a public forum such as this one – People can to back and check the whole history! I originally posted that, in my opinion, something was not right with the Mahler Fifth. Somehow along the way, you started to construe my criticisms of the recording as personal attacks and insults, even though I bent over backwards to be humorous and civilized. Oh well . . .
“What I have stated from the begining and made very clear, is that the "reality" that Water Lily captures is determined by me and thus my "view".”
This seems to me a bit changed from what you (and Robert Greene) stated originally, that there is only one objective reality and that only Water Lily’s recording technique can capture it. I was the one, who, with considerable verbiage, examples, and explanations, steered you to your present position: that what you’re capturing is YOUR view of reality from the vantage point of where you place the microphones. (Anyone can go back and check this.)
“I do hold however, that our view is valid as it is based on a theoratical model that is very sound. You may know all this, but I am sure that there are some readers who will benefit from the information to be outlined below. The spaced omni mike technique was born out of the research done at Bell Labs in the 20s. Their experiments with Stoky and The Philadelphia Orchestra, wherin rows of mikes placed before the orchesta were in turn linked to corresponding speakers, showed that in effect the same resuls could be achived with just three spaced omni mikes. This "wall of sound" technique was then pioneered by Bert at Everst and addopted by Mercury, Command and much later Telarc. The Bell Labs model was to place the three mikes very close to the orchestra, thus avoiding much reflected sound pick up and then play back the recording in a large, live room, allowing the speaker/room acoustical interaction to provide the "ambiance". The physical nature of this mike placement entails that sounds on the right will reach the right mike before the center and left mikes. So it will be for sound sources on the left. It is this time delay that prevents this mike technique from being able to create a stable stereo image with precise instumental localisation. These time delays also cause a phenomeon knowen as comb filer effects that will further color the sound. There are those who argue that since onmi mikes are in effect directional in the high frequancies (a fact) that the three spaced omni technique can yeild stable, precise images. I have yet to hear this miracle!
The genius of Blumlein is that he realised that the recordeing should capture and presrve the spatial/ambiant information as well. Further, in his mike arrangment, wherein two figure-of-eight mikes are placed coincidentaly, both mikes sample all sounds at the same point in space and thus are phase and amplitude coherent, yeilding precise stereo images and accurate instumantal localisation.”Excellent information! – although as you say, many of us are aware of this already.
“Mercury may not have EQed nor compressed (except for the medium itself doing it) while recording, but they certainly EQed and compressed while mastering the LP. And I am not reffering to the mandatory RIAA EQ required for LP mastering. Also keep in mind that the German tube mikes they (RCA, Decca and EMI as well) used were far from being flat. Thus, this would have to be considerd a form of EQ as well.”
OK, I stated that I was reading from the Mercury CD booklet, and here you start quoting LP mastering information to support your original assertion. Really, that’s just an attempt to weasel out of your original reckless statement. (Remember: [these recordings] “were deliberatly derived through a combination of mikes/miking technique and EQ/compression”.) I think when most folks read a phrase like that, they have visions of someone applying equalization to compensate for irregularities in the microphones’ frequency response, or, worse yet, applying equalization to suit the whims of the producer or engineer. Clearly, this was not the case in the Mercury recordings.
“To this day some of these tube mikes are highly sought after by the pop studios, as they produce a "fat" warm sound that "enhances" the vocals of the popular "divas". The BBC designed Coles ribbon mikes on the other hand are far more nutral and flatter than any of these tube mikes.”
Here you admit that your Coles mikes are just more neutral and flatter. So I guess if the Mercury team was applying equalization (because their microphones were not perfectly flat), then Water Lily is too (just not as much)! It’s the same logic. By the way, I’d be very surprised if the microphones used by pop divas are the same models which Mercury used for symphonic recording. They might be tube mikes, but that’s about the end of the similarity. (Do you really think divas use omnidirectional mikes? I don’t.)
“Yes, EMI did use the classic Blumlein technique for a very, very short time. (There is an interview forthcoming in TAS wherein I go into all this in great depth and detail.) I have always preferred the EMI "house sound", even after they had abandoned the Blumlein technique. To me the EMI sound was closer to the real thing than that on any Mercury, RCA or Decca recording.”
Whoah, Kavi! How does this statement square with your previous reckless assertion, “. . . there is a Decca sound, an EMI sound, a Mercury sound and an RCA sound. It is my opinion that though entertaining, the "house sound" of these forementioned labels, are highly colored and in no way represent the real sound of an orchestra.”? So you prefer EMI’s sound (even after they abandoned the Blumlein technique), even though it “in no way represent[s] the real sound of an orchestra”? BTW, I look forward to reading your article in TAS, even though, as one of the Steely Dan folks once said, that is one nutty magazine!
“And yes, I will be the first to admit that no recording is "perfect" (limits of technology) and is an exact replica of the musical reality, but some recorings do come convinsingly close. To my ears those recordings are the ones done with coincident and near coincident mike techniques.”
We’ve been over this before. Although I often like coincident-miked recordings (and I’m glad that you’re producing a new series of them – remember, I bought two copies of just the Mahler Fifth!), my tolerance for other relatively purist approaches, such as spaced omnis, is higher than yours.
“As for listeners who have extraordinary pinna structures and are "wired" in such a way, so as to hear "pin point" stereo images from spaced omni recordings, I can only say that not having mastered hyper dimentional physics, this rarefied subject is way out of my league and will have to be reffered to the experts at Area 51. Please drive out into the Nevada desert with Teresa... who knows, you just might hear the sound of "one hand slapping"!”
You don’t need to put “pin point” in quotation marks – I never used that term. But, Kavi, since you stated above that you prefer EMI’s sound even after they abandoned the Blumlein technique, Teresa and I will be happy to take you with us out to Nevada. I can just see the three of us frolicking around in the desert! Oh, and did you mention “slapping” – sounds kind of kinky!
“I refuse to comment further on the layout/artwork issue as it is not really germane to the subject at hand.”
Fine with me.
“Again, not having mastered Latin I must revert to the Sufi tradition that I am familer with for my quote: "The dog may bark, but the caravan moves on..."”
Yeah, I like that quote too, but you’ve already used it in a separate e-mail to me.
-Chris Salocks
(Take my opinions with a grain of salt – everything else being equal, I prefer DVD-Audio!)
In all my postings where the issue of reality has been raised, I have been very clear that the "view" projected is mine. Read the third posting, wherein I discribe the mike placement, that posting ends with the words "per my ears".
I may have not been clear, so I will delineate: I find the orchestral recordings that the audiophiles venerate for great sound, the offerings from Mercury, RCA and Decca, to be highly unrealistic, yet I do activly seek them out and buy them (used and reissues). Why? because I enjoy great music making. I never said that the recordings from Mercury, RCA and Decca were BAD, only that their sound was nowhere near the real thing. I still love the Brahms violin concerto on RCA and own an original pressing that I enjoy for the sheer brilliance of the artistry and the way that music moves me. But sadly, the image of the violin is five feet wide and the violinist is not well integrated with the orchestra, due in effect to spot miking. In contrast the EMI recordings of the "Lark Asending" portray the violin in realistic size and the violinist better integrated within the orchestra. I find the EMI recordings to be far closer to the real thing, not as bombastic as the Mercurys and Deccas and not as cold and bright as the RCAs. Same thing applies to many of the older jazz LPs I buy, again both used and reissues. Often ping pong stereo with hard right, hard left images, but to hear Prez blow his sax or the Duke lead his big band into a great arrangment is to forget about the mockery that most recordings really are. I am a music lover first and formost. Yes, I am stubborn and doctrinaire, because if you do not passionately belive in what you do, you might as well not do it.
Mercury stared out as a country/pop lable and I am sure Bob Fine had Pultec (some of the best made) EQs. The booklet you quote says that no controls were touched once the recording began. Nowhere dose it say no EQ was applied. And what if the EQ had been set during the mike set up? I listen mainly to LPs and thus have only Mercury LPs. I can only speak about the things I know and have experienced. The Mercury LPs were certainly EQed and compressed during mastering.
Some of the tube mikes used by Mercury, Decca, RCA and EMI are still sought after and daily used in stock form in the pop and rock world for their "rich", "fat" sound. Often as vocal mikes. This is a fact.
The comment "the sound of one had slapping" reffers to Teresa's posting that my Svetlanov recording "was a slap in the face..."
So I get home a little late from work (busy day!). . . and here’s yet another post from Kavi waiting for me. I guess I have to slog through these things. (Excerpts from his post are in quotation marks.)“In all my postings where the issue of reality has been raised, I have been very clear that the "view" projected is mine. Read the third posting, wherein I discribe the mike placement, that posting ends with the words "per my ears".”
Here I’m giving Kavi the benefit of the doubt, and will make a distinction between what he posted (however far down it was) and what his minion : - ) posted in the first post. Again, any reader can see what the sequence of posts was.
“I may have not been clear, so I will delineate: I find the orchestral recordings that the audiophiles venerate for great sound, the offerings from Mercury, RCA and Decca, to be highly unrealistic, yet I do activly seek them out and buy them (used and reissues). Why? because I enjoy great music making. I never said that the recordings from Mercury, RCA and Decca were BAD, only that their sound was nowhere near the real thing.”
Nowhere near the real thing? Still seems like an extravagant statement to me. I suppose it depends on what your frame of reference is. In absolute terms, all recordings are nowhere near the real thing.
“I still love the Brahms violin concerto on RCA and own an original pressing that I enjoy for the sheer brilliance of the artistry and the way that music moves me. But sadly, the image of the violin is five feet wide and the violinist is not well integrated with the orchestra, due in effect to spot miking. In contrast the EMI recordings of the "Lark Asending" portray the violin in realistic size and the violinist better integrated within the orchestra. I find the EMI recordings to be far closer to the real thing, not as bombastic as the Mercurys and Deccas and not as cold and bright as the RCAs.”
I’m assuming Kavi is referring to the Heifetz performance. A more loaded example couldn’t be found – not only is the image five feet wide (while not optimal, I can certainly live with that), but the balance is so skewed in favor of the solo violin (apparently to cater to Heifetz’s enormous ego) that you find yourself smiling involuntarily at how absurd the balance gets. So while, in my opinion, this recording could never be a first choice, there’s still some mighty fine fiddle playing to be heard here. I’m also still confused that RCA, Mercury, Decca, and EMI recordings are “nowhere near the real thing”, and yet EMI recordings are “far closer to the real thing”. I guess EMI recordings are “far closer to the real thing” even though they’re still “nowhere near the real thing.”
“Same thing applies to many of the older jazz LPs I buy, again both used and reissues. Often ping pong stereo with hard right, hard left images, but to hear Prez blow his sax or the Duke lead his big band into a great arrangment is to forget about the mockery that most recordings really are. I am a music lover first and formost.”
I like to think we’re all are music lovers too, even though much of our discussion is about audio. I know I like to flatter myself that I’m a music lover.
“Yes, I am stubborn and doctrinaire, because if you do not passionately belive in what you do, you might as well not do it.”
Actually, I agree with Kavi’s statement here, at least as far as one’s own products are concerned. I’m just troubled by his cavalier dismissals in previous posts of the efforts other recording companies – the very ones who advanced the state of the art and deserve criticism the least.
“Mercury stared out as a country/pop lable and I am sure Bob Fine had Pultec (some of the best made) EQs.”
Robert Eberenz says they used a Pultec amplifier, not an equalizer. (See one of my other posts from tonight.)
“The booklet you quote says that no controls were touched once the recording began. Nowhere dose it say no EQ was applied.”
No, but Eberenz says this. (Again, see one of my other posts from tonight.)
“And what if the EQ had been set during the mike set up?”
Yeah, but there wasn’t, according to Eberenz.
“I listen mainly to LPs and thus have only Mercury LPs. I can only speak about the things I know and have experienced. The Mercury LPs were certainly EQed and compressed during mastering.”
OK, fine. But then why are you so certain that EQ was applied during CD and SACD mastering if you haven’t even heard them? BTW, why don’t you give the new SACD’s a try? For one thing, the pitch stability is way better than on LP.
“Some of the tube mikes used by Mercury, Decca, RCA and EMI are still sought after and daily used in stock form in the pop and rock world for their "rich", "fat" sound. Often as vocal mikes. This is a fact.”
See my comments regarding the Telefunken/Schoeps 201, the main mike (often the only mike) used in all Mercury stereo recordings, in another post tonight.
The comment "the sound of one had slapping" reffers to Teresa's posting that my Svetlanov recording "was a slap in the face..."Darn! – And I was looking forward to cavorting around in the desert with you and Teresa!
-Chris Salocks
(Take my opinions with a grain of salt – everything else being equal, I prefer DVD-Audio!)
Since I work for a living - I can't respond until tonight. Post to your heart's content until then.
... and I live off the fat of the land? No, I lived by ripping off the music loving public by offering them abyssmal recordings wherein the orchestral balance is off, there is no bass, the mids pinched and the highs missing. But now you have showen me the light! I shall make spaced omni recordings!
You strike me as the sort that has nothing good to say about anything. You do not like my recording, you dislike my art work and now you have to make a snide remark about TAS as well. Let me tell you, TAS has done far, far more for the music lover than you and Teresa will EVER do.
What really is your contribution to the music lover? In which way do you enlighten or uplift the music lover?
As mentioned yesterday, I work for a living and did not win the lottery today. I will not be able to respond to further posts until late tomorrow evening. Again, post to your heart's content!
So I get home a little late from work (busy day!). . . and here’s yet another post from Kavi waiting for me. I guess I have to slog through these things. (Excerpts from his post are in quotation marks.)
“... and I live off the fat of the land? No, I lived by ripping off the music loving public by offering them abyssmal recordings wherein the orchestral balance is off, there is no bass, the mids pinched and the highs missing. But now you have showen me the light! I shall make spaced omni recordings!”For some of us, our emotional highs spring from a fine performance of a beautiful masterwork, whereas for Kavi, intense emotions arise from imagined slights and insults from listeners who dare criticize this or that aspect of his recordings. Steam gushes from his ears as he conflates what different people said into one miserable criticism of his work. And since his recordings are the ONLY ones which sound like real music, there must be something wrong with these demented souls who denigrate his sonic masterpieces.
But wait! These same demented souls who dare to criticize Kavi’s recordings actually like SOME single-point stereo recordings – but they also like other relatively purist recordings such as spaced omnis made with as many as (gasp!) SIX microphones! But for Kavi, this is blasphemy – spaced omni recordings have no relationship with the sound of real music. How can this be? –especially when Kavi admits he likes (prefers) post-Blumlein EMI recordings. It’s a paradox – Perhaps it’s one of the mysteries of faith! Yes, my children, when Kavi receives something as vicious as a little criticism, he has to “turn the other cheek”.
“You strike me as the sort that has nothing good to say about anything. You do not like my recording, you dislike my art work and now you have to make a snide remark about TAS as well. Let me tell you, TAS has done far, far more for the music lover than you and Teresa will EVER do.
What really is your contribution to the music lover? In which way do you enlighten or uplift the music lover?”Unable to convince others by the logic of his arguments, Kavi now resorts to ad hominem attacks, even though a little effort on his part (maybe a web search?) would have revealed plenty of positive comments about various recordings – like, maybe, the Exton DVD-Audios with the Czech Philharmonic.
Now he demands to know my contribution to the music lover. I think he should put a little effort into it and do a web search. He’ll find enough things, even though I work for a living.
Oh yes, TAS! Perhaps Kavi should gather the other members of the TAS faith and listen to his new recordings – the only ones which sound like real music. By the way, wasn’t TAS on a crusade for a long time to warn listeners of the horrors of digital music. Why then is Kavi releasing his new recordings on CD? I guess it’s just another mystery of faith. And another mystery of faith: HP’s list of records to die for (or whatever it’s called) includes (or included, I haven’t looked at it recently) Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo recordings. What’s going on here in the temple of the true believers?
-Chris Salocks
(Take my opinions with a grain of salt – everything else being equal, I prefer DVD-Audio!)
Any chance you guys might ever release "Sufi" music? Stuff like Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan's Qawaali music. That would be awesome.
Unique and essential.
- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00000GV6I/qid=1122268701/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_sbs_1/103-6385863-1332618?v=glance&s=music&n=507846 (Open in New Window)
Dear Dave, There is a recording of the Mevlavi Emsamble of Turkey on WLA titled "Wherever you turn is the face of God". Sadly it is out of stock at present. All the best. KAVI.
Public libraries lend CDs out the the public for free. And the public can and does copy these free CDs. I think it would be extremely hard to find lending an item illegal. Ripping the bits and posting on a website for worldwide download would be something different. But lending the physical disk for a temporary home audition?Morality is another question. Teresa's motives are no doubt noble, she wants to give people a chance to make up their own mind on the sound quality using their own ears and their own equipment.
It is possible that this could cut into the sales. But it could also have the opposite effect. Since reputable listeners have now praised the sound of this disk, it is possible that some considerable percentage of listeners who audition this will also like it and go buy their own copy. The net effect on sales is probably negligible, since this will be circulating by mail and will probably only visit a dozen people anyway.
As for me, I will go get one or all of these this weekend and make up my own mind.
Hi Mr. Greene here are some of your comments and my responses:"But to object to lack of bass, say, or to claim there is no "midrange warmth" is just foolishness."
Why? enjoyment of orchestral music requires a solid bass foundation. And one should be able to hear the fundamental tone of String Basses, Cellos and Timpani not just the overtones, which is NOT the case on this poorly mic'ed Water Lily recording.
"There is as much bass on the recording as was actually there."
Untrue NO concert hall I have ever been in is totally devoid of low frequency energy or a glassy and cold sounding as this recording!"I personally think that the recorded reality is the only way to go."
I agree but the SKRYABIN Water Lily SACD is NOT so recorded. Check out the single stereo microphone recordings by Bert White on Crystal Clear Direct to Disc of the London Symphony Orchestra and Boston Pops. Or the single stereo microphone recordings from Sheffield Lab of the LA Philharmonic and the Moscow Symphony Orchestra. Or the 2 and 3 microphone recordings on RCA Living Stereo. Or the 3 microphone recordings on Mercury Living Presence and Telarc. These all reproduce the bottom 2 octaves and actually sound like a real orchestra playing in a real hall or in the case of the Sheffield LA Phil LPs MGMs large studio. The Water Lily does not!!!!!! Also check out other Realistic sounding SACDs from Telarc, BIS, Delos, AudioQuest and others.I can only comment on the SKRYABIN / SVETLANOV SACD as I have not heard the Shostakovich and Mahler ones.
Robert the registered posters on Hi-Res highway would not make illegal copies of SACDs and anyway SACDs are copy protected. To imply such a thing is a huge insult to everyone here! . This is only the third SACD in which the sound quality was so poor that I have issued a warning. The other two are Ozzfest 2002 Live Album and Rimsky-Korsakov: Scheherazade with Valery Gergiev on Philips SACD.
In an attempt to do as Teresa suggests, I played the only SACD I have that is (1) of a piano concerto, and (2) is on one of the labels she mentions—the Brahms No. 1 with Artur Rubinstein, Fritz Reiner and the CSO on RCA, then played the Water Lily SACD of the Svetlanov piano concerto. By comparison, it is the RCA recording that is the travesty, with a huge piano pasted into the soundstage in an incoherent, even combative relationship with the orchestra. The "space" depcted by this recording is completely unreal. The Water Lily, on the other hand, clearly depicts a pianist, on a stage, in front of an orchestra, in a room. (For the record, Kavi Alexander is a friend of mine, but I made this comparison, several times, for other people who do not know him, and their reactions were always the same as mine.) Dan Meinwald
And this SACD sounds nothing like you describe. Have you ever played Piano? A real Grand Piano has weight and lots of low frequency energy in the lower registers and on this the Living Stereo SACD it does and it has the tonal qualities of a real Grand Piano. On the other hand the Svetlanov piano concerto on Water Lily SACD sounds bright, clanky and has no bass, nothing what so ever like a Grand Piano sounds like in Real life.I love audiophile recordings, and this is the ONLY AUDIOPHILE recording I have ever complained about the sound quality. Something is really, really wrong with my Water Lily SACD, maybe you should borrow it and see if it sounds worse than your copy of the SACD. You can email me.
I am serious when I said something happened to the bass, if the bass is on the master tape then it disappeared in the pressing plant.
I love Water Lily recordings and this is the only Water Lily that sounds WRONG and totally lacks any bass foundation.So is my copy of this SACD defective then?
It is clear Teresa is blessed with extra sensory preception, as she is able to hear pinpoint stereo imaging from spaced omni recordings, a technical impossibility in the mundane world that mere mortals like me inhabit! Then there is the issue of the LSO and Boston Pops recrdings done by Bert Whyte for Crystal Clear. As far as I can tell the LSO recordings were never released. Be that as it may, I have an LP of the Boston Pops recording. Aside from the fact that Bert pioneered the three spaced omni technique (derived from the Bell Labs experiments) at Everest and was known for using this method AND the fact that the LP jacket has a photo of the session showing FOUR mike stands, Teresa claims it is a single point stereo recording! One who can not tell the difference between a single point and spaced omni (3 or more mikes!) recording, certainly should not pontificate on such matters. KAVI.
I just want to know what went went wrong with this one? No low frequency energy and cold sounding. This DOES NOT sound like the Water Lily recordings I love. I even love Nature's Realm even though the hall was less than perfect and Nature's Realm has deep bass and is tonally accurate. And Jon Hassell Fascinoma and all the East meets West Indian-Western SACDs. These are all great and sound very realistic.So what went wrong with the SKRYABIN / SVETLANOV Water Lily SACD?
I apologize about the mis-type the Orchestra recordings done by Bert Whyte. However, the Sheffield Lab Orchestral recordings were indeed were single stereo microphones. And the RCA, Living Stereo and Telarc recordings are correctly listed as far as microphones with one exception, in the mid-80's on some projects Telarc started using more than 3 space omni's. I guess I need to be a better proof reader.
Also on my speaker's I am able to hear pin-point imaging with Telarc and Mercury Living Presence with their 3 spaced omni microphones so it is not impossible. I admit it took 6 months to get my speakers in exactly the right place, well away from the rear and side walls and only slightly toed in. Some are so spot on accuate it is scarry.
The Crystal Clear Direct to Disc LSO recordings done by Bert Whyte were the Gould: Spirtuals for Orchestra and Foster Gallery and the Susskind Prokofiev: Love for three Oranges.
I do want to clearly restate I love Water Lily LPs and SACDs except for this one. And I was very excited about this release until I heard it as I love Scribian.
____________________ Kavi here is a email you sent me 05/12/2001 ______
Dear Teresa,
Thank you for your e-mail and kind support of our work. I am pleased to inform you that we are currently busy preparing ten new titles for release in the SACD format. The titles are as follows: "MUMTAZ MAHAL", "BOURBON & ROSEWATER", "TABULA RASA", "MUSIC FOR THE MOTHERLESS CHILD", "SALTANAH", KAMBARA MUSIC IN NATIVE TONGUES", "SOUTHERN BROTHERS", "FROM THE ASHES", "HOLLOW BAMBOO" and "INDIAN ARCHITEXTURE".
I believe this ought to make you
happy... All the very best... KAVI.
--
Kavi Alexander
Water Lily Acoustics
music@waterlilyacoustics.com
_____________________________________________________________________________And yes those SACDs did make me very happy, thanks! Basically what I am asking is what went wrong with the SKRYABIN / SVETLANOV Water Lily SACD.
Thanks in advance,
Teresa
insane? rubbish? come on and you had been behaving very well.Actually you should wait until you hear an SACD before you comment on it. Even though you have been mean to me in the past if you register with the Audio Asylum I will put you on a mailing list to hear this controversial SACD.
Once you register send me an email,
It is all in your head and has no basis in fact! Why is that so hard for you to undertand?I have never spouted hate not even once, although you do it all the time. It is not me who acts insane if you look you will see it is you.
I offered you the chance to hear this recording for yourself for free. I cannot do any more than that. As I have said Water Lily is one of my favorite recording companies but this one is messed up badly, should I keep quiet about that? I don't think so. I also want to warned about any poorly made recordings as well. That is why I come here.
And you actually owe me at least 3 dozen apologies! Apologize now and clear your conscience, it is good for the soul.
Well I was wrong. You are just as mean ever. Go ahead and search you will not find one single instance of hate, condescending attitude or even put downs originally penned by me, I have been attacked and thrown someone elses hatred back into their face. It is all in your head and you need to get it out of your head now. To go on like this Dave555 is not healthy, you need to face reality and soon!Here is the review where are the Caps and Stong emotions?
_________________________________________________________________________________
ALEXANDER SKRYABIN: Symphony No. 3
YEVGENY SVETLANOV: Piano Concerto in C Minor; Prelude in A Minor
Ovchinnikov, Dmitriev, St. Petersburg Academic Symphony Orchestra [SACD] Water Lily Acoustics WLA-WS-75-SACD
A pure DSD recording made in the great St. Petersburg's Hall using only 2 microphonesWhere's the Bass? Where's the midrange warmth? This is the coldest, driest classical recording I have ever heard and one of the worst sounding SACDs ever. What went wrong Kari Alexander? The only thing I can think of is he had the two microphones in the worst possible place. The old Water Lily Nature's Realm SACD which is on the cold/dry side sounds fantastic compared to this one. Nature's Realm had the excuse of being recorded in a poor hall, but St. Petersburg is a great hall. This SACD is so bad I am putting it up on eBay this weekend, as I never want to hear it again.
My advice ignore these new Water Lily Acoustics SACDs. Since I refuse to be all downer, my next post is my recommended SACDs purchased in the last 2 months.
Teresa
______________________________________________________________________________________
How would you have written the review differently?
It is time for you to come clean and apologize. I am offering good advise to you it is up to you to follow through.
Wishing for the best,
Teresa
supposed sound quality.
I disliked the sound on the Nature's Realm Water Lily disc until I read the fine print in the booklet. In the last paragraph of Robert Greene's comments, directions are given that, because of the recording technique used, the listener must be at a 90 degree angle with the speakers, to hear the intended perspective. I moved my seat forward so each front speaker was 45 degrees to my left and right, and then the sound and perspective did, in fact, greatly improve.However, I normally sit further back, and don't intend to go to the trouble to play this disc much under the specified conditions.
I wonder if a similar recording technique was used in the other Water Lily discs? If so, moving up, or turning the speakers inward, may help.
nt
makes me so happy that I have an APL player.Tunenut is so right, as hard as his comments are to read, he is so right......
There's no point in direction, we cannot even choose, a side
I agree his comments are hard to read. That is because he is a moron.
I have all 3 and love them; I think they are the most realistic symphonic recordings that exist.
Needless to say (considering my previous posts), I agree with Teresa on this recording and on the Mahler 5 in the Water Lily St Petersburg series. (Haven't heard the Shostakovitch.)In the meantime, consider this: in the producer's notes for the Mehta / NY Phil recording of Mahler's Fifth Symphony on Teldec, Max Wilcox states: "The orchestration of Mahler's Fifth Symphony is a study in contrasts, ranging from a string quartet in the third movement to the enormous climaxes of the finale. We needed a space which would yield both clarity and the sense of depth and openness so vital to Mahler's music. A concert hall would seem to be the obvious choice, yet we learned by experience that the early sound reflections from the rear of the stage favor the projection of the brass and percussion thus causing problems with the strings and winds."
To my ears, this is exactly what has happened in the Water Lily recording of Mahler's Fifth. It's all well and good to use a minimal microphone technique, but you have to position the mikes in the right place, or you'll end up with the mal-adjusted balance described by Wilcox.
By the way, Wilcox apparently used (8) microphones for the Mehta recording - I'd guess that's on the low side, compared to most recordings of this work these days. I don't think he was entirely successful however - the Teldec recording lacks definition and bite (too much reflected sound). But at least the balance among the orchestral sections on the Mehta recording is realistic (unless our reference point is from the cheap seats way in the back of the hall!).
Interesting that th thread gets back to music..This is what sacd should be about?...
I have the Shostakovitch and also the RBCD of Chailly Decca.I dont think the sacd is anywhere near as good a version and the recording is a bit bright and brash at times..Definitly not DSD original...However....Meanwhile on sa-cd net there seems to be dissent in the ranks on reviews of sacds...eg I personally found the Bruckner 5th VPO Harrencourt a huge dissapointment and worse than a redbook cd..also the stop start performance...meanwhile Viktor found the Higdon Telarc musically threadbare and reported it such..Sonically fabulous...This seems to have provoked outrage that anyone who doent like the music should review?...shades of something we remember in out history lessons???> ..strong hints that we are not supposed to review the music?....just the sacd.....meanwhile (part two) I would also suggest you check out some of the Membran items...List is on that website....These may not be state of the art (1991-6)recordings but there are some fantastic items in there..... solo piano works .Schubert Debussy Chopin etc ..C Franck and Gorecki symphonies..C Davies music...also beware a few duffers...and be prepared to go from one piece to the next in record time.....very very short gaps...Dave
Wouldn't know how many times over some inmates already have another rendition of the recording on vinyl or CD (perhaps from a different conductor, orchestra, soloist, etc). To them at least, this is strictly about the sound quality and is the recording better or at least on par (preferably much better) than what else they own. Teresa states she does not plan on listening to this SACD again. I'm don't believe that is because of the music content.I appreciate the opinions on the sound quality so I can avoid some clunkers. Opinions vary and I understand that but at least I have something to go on. Heading to the music board will give opinions about the music content for which one can judge if they may be interested in listening based upon that.
I love both composers mentioned and would love to have all of Skryabin's Symphonies if they are recorded correctly. In time I am sure someone like Telarc will make decent recordings of these.
... I think you ought to do yourself some good and spend money on some concert tickets and a plain ticket... fly to St. Petersburg and see for yourself.
This SACD is anemic in the lower registers, which causes the midrange and the even the high frequencies to sound incorrect. I do not believe for one second the St. Petersburg hall sounds glassy, cold, hard and totally devoid of low frequency energy, if so I never want to listen to an orchestra play there! Check out how realistic the Mercury Living Presence recordings done in the Bolshoi Hall, Tchaikovsky Conservatory, Moscow sounds, it is warm deep bass, smooth midrange and beautiful delicate highs and the sound HUGH with pin-point imaging using 3 microphones. Or for that matter any recordings on Telarc, Mercury Living Presense, RCA Living Stereo or Reference Recordings.The Water Lily SACD is extremely bass shy; live music DOES NOT sound like this. This is why I am letting everyone listen to this disgraceful SACD for free.
... perhaps I am confusing the thunderous bass with local earthquakes, I do live in LA...
The 3 WaterLily SACDs have extremely full and deep bass with remarkable detail.
yours with thunderous bass and mine with no bottom end.
I found the way these open up is to play them really(!) loud and move the listening position forward. Stereo or MCH, although the latter doesn't require as much repositioning.
But sorry the bottom octaves are missing and that just will not do. The low frequencies do not have to have the energy of a Telarc but they should at least be there!BTW you can only listen in 2 channel stereo there is not MCH tracks which makes sense they only used 2 microphones.
the X/Y process does that...
Use a proper headamp to drive the Senns, otherwise you are listening to crap.
Doh.[Posted by 128.241.111.21. This is added while posting a message via http://webwarper.net to avoid misuse of WebWarper. Example of using WebWarper: http://webwarper.net/ww/~av/www.AudioAsylum.com/forums/hirez/bbs.html ]
"BTW you can only listen in 2 channel stereo there is not MCH tracks which makes sense they only used 2 microphones."Only the Scriabin. Check with REG about the others.
It will go to the first on the list and then that person will send it to the second on the list and so on.Decide for yourself is this "the most realistic symphonic recordings that exist" as Danny Kaey says? Or is it the worst orchestral recording you have ever heard as I say? Or is it something inbetween.
E-mail me and we will start this SACD on the round robin. You have to be a registered user to e-mail me.
Hello there Teresa.
I would really like to hear this recording after the heated discussion it has raised here.But what's your e-mail adress?
Mail me back if your still offering to loan me the disc.
All the best Chris.
Please email me with your address and I will put you on the list.
The wise ones say one should never give a monkey a flower garland. It will most certainly break it and eat the flowers! How true those words of wisdom are in your pityfull case.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: