 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
99.35.57.157
In Reply to: RE: recording fads and fashions posted by mls-stl on July 15, 2009 at 06:43:37
If you don't the music from these labels (are many other audiophile labels like DG, Pentatone, etc.) then you're in a bind. Because this means you like pop/rock and these simply are not going to be "distant miked". They never were. It's even questionable whether we should be playing this kind of music back through a high-resolution system.
Or maybe you like jazz - *now* you have a chance !!
Follow Ups:
Don't get too presumptuous in telling me what I like and I don't. ;-)I've been collecting music for about 40 years now and have well over 40,000 songs on my server. It runs the gamut from classical, jazz and Ghana funeral drumming to garage rock. Even have some 2nd gen open reel copies of studio masters.
There are times when fun and games in the manipulation and processing department are entertaining and appropriate, but there are lots of recordings where they just can't leave well enough alone.
And I didn't say I didn't like the music from the labels you mentioned. I just don't find them a guarantee of musical performance. And, while the audiophile labels may not be guilty of playing in the loudness wars, they are not completely immune from the current fads & fashions of the audiophile community.
Edits: 07/15/09
Don't know what the "current fads and fashions of the audiophile community" means....
The labels I mentioned sound about as good as it gets - for natural sound with proper perspective (very little, if any, close-miking).
> > Don't know what the "current fads and fashions of the audiophile community" means....
Fads and fashions can be difficult to spot when one is member of the group involved.
As an example, the other night I listened to the multi-disk set of the Emerson Quartet playing the Mendelssohn string quartets. This DG recording is quite well regarded.
It actually came with a short video. It was interesting to note (and they even commented on this) that 14 microphones were used. Eight "spot" mikes, two more group stereo mikes and others for hall ambiance. While the spot mikes were not directly on the instruments as one would find in pop or rock recordings, they were certainly far closer - perhaps three feet - than any position anyone outside of the musicians themselves would have been at a performance.
All of this for four players. Those 14 channels had to be mixed to create the final recording released to the public.
I think you'll find this is not uncommon for classical music these days and is a good illustration of the prevailing "fashion" in recording these days. I guess you could call it the "Kodachrome" effect where recordings are often a glossy, larger-than-life version even when their goal is capturing a live event.
It's a rare audiophile label that uses 14 mikes !! The vast majority use far fewer. It's how *close* the mikes are that matters most........
> > It's a rare audiophile label that uses 14 mikes !! The vast majority
> > use far fewer. It's how *close* the mikes are that matters most........
...the majority of classical recordings (or any other type for that matter) do not discuss the recording techniques used.
However, when one does see a session photo, it is a rare event to see only two mikes present. I just looked through some classical LPs (which have nice big photos.) The cover of Leonard Slatkin's recording of Prokofiev's 5th has a nice photo of the whole orchestra. I counted at least 10 mikes, including the two main stereo mikes which were only eight to ten feet in front of the stage from the nearest players.
I know there are exceptions, but frankly, multi-miking with highlighters in classical music is still more common than not.
Of course, we're pretty far from the original subject, but an interesting segue nonetheless.
I just don't see multi-miking as the sin you make it out to be. In the end, it's the sound...and multi-miking sounds about as good (to me) as Blumlein. As long as they weren't *close* miking.There is a small group of Blumlein junkies out there inc. audio writers Steven Stone and Robert Greene. And Chesky, Water Lily and Tony Faulkner (engineer) make them. I'd go this route for this unusual miking technique.....
Edits: 07/16/09 07/16/09
> > I just don't see multi-miking as the sin you make it out to be
Please don't put words in my mouth. I referred to multi-miking as a "fad and fashion" which is hardly the same thing as a sin, either mortal or venal.
Some degree of multi-miking is simply SOP for the vast majority of recordings. I accept that. It makes for generally pleasant recordings and offers much greater post-production flexibility than simpler miking arrangements. I find nothing surprising about its popularity in the recording industry. It simply is what it is.
However, if you look at the way humans hear in stereo (where transit arrival time, frequency response, high frequency shadowing, phase differences and other factors all play a role) the use of multi-miking really distorts the original sonic 3-D image. Having multiple sources for the same sound means that an artificial mix has replaced the original image.
One analogy would be a food manufacturer replacing a natural ingredient with an artificial one for the sake of improved consistency.
I'm not passing judgement one way or the other; there is a lot of wonderful music available and many enjoyable recordings. But I do marvel at times over the audiophile community's selective purism. In the reproduction chain, some departures from high standards of authenticity are unforgiveable while others are rarely even noticed. I guess audiophiles are human after all. ;-)
I'm not putting words in your mouth - you obviously don't believe in multi-miking.But this is a minority standpoint - most of the 9 and 10 star reviews (for sound) on Classics Today.com are multi-mike recordings.
And I have Blumlein's in my collection - but they do not sound better.
You are entitled to your opinion...but you're whipping-up your argument for one-point miking into a science which at this juncture, it is not....
Edits: 07/16/09 07/16/09
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
