|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
63.155.20.133
In Reply to: RE: Classical WAF posted by Bill the K on March 24, 2021 at 06:38:33
Actually, this is done a LOT on recordings of concerti for solo instrument plus orchestra. And it arguably better suits the composer's intent to have the soloist stand out from the accompaniment.
I have a box set of all Paganini's violin concerti, and the solo fiddle is mixed very much front and center, even in the loud tutti passages. To me, it sounds right there, although in an unamplified live performance it would be somewhat more swallowed in the mix.
Follow Ups:
Most concerto recordings have the soloist "accentuated" relative to the orchestra.... It never sounds that way live (especially with violin concertos), unless you're seated in the first three rows with the soloist directly in front of you.At a live concert, the violin utilized by the solo performer in a concerto sounds no different from the individual violins in the orchestra..... Most likely, the soloist is playing "louder" than the orchestral performers, to attain a sense of balance.... Recordings lose a lot of low level resolution, hence the soloist is often individually mic'ed so he/she can be heard more easily in the mix.
Edits: 03/25/21
If you go to a live classical concert (One day god willing we will go again) and here for exaample a Violin or Cello Concerto in the hall when you are listening subjectivly the soloist does sound as clear and loud as the full orchestra. They don't mic at all, what you see is what you get. But when the full orchestra comes back in because you have tuned in to the level of the soloist it seems loud and thrilling. All part of the joy of the concert.
A full orchestra at full pelt is a magnificent thing to listen too, for example the last movement of Beethovens Ninth always makes me think of running flat out downhill to a finish line.
I had a few RCA's that sounded like they stuck a microphone close in front of the soloist and turned the gain way up on that mic.
Agreed that when done right, you can capture both the soloist and the orchestra with their proper balances intact.
The old Mercury Living Presence recordings (and other recordings from the "golden age of stereo") were made that way. And, except for one recording, Mercury used only three microphones for their whole classical stereo catalog. The projection of the soloist all depends on where you're sitting (at the concert) or, on a recording, where the microphones are placed. (Of course, you do have to get the microphones exactly in the right place!) In any case, it shouldn't require any special mixing on the engineer's part other than to set the placement and levels of the microphones to begin with - although, in practice (and unfortunately IMHO), companies have moved away from simple microphone techniques (and towards active mixing) over time. And even the Mercury folks had to mix their center channel pick-up into the final L and R channels too (except on the MCH SACD reissues, where you can adjust the level of that discrete center channel into the total sound picture yourself if you don't like the way they did it! Power to the People! Want the soloist to stand out even more? Raise the level of that center channel! - Done!).
"The old Mercury Living Presence recordings (and other recordings from the 'golden age of stereo') were made that way. And, except for one recording, Mercury used only three microphones for their whole classical stereo catalog."
Telarc did the exact same thing with its orchestral recordings..... With the Soundstream digital recording system based LPs. Such recording techniques were no longer disclosed when albums started being released with the masters no longer from the 50 kHz sample rate Soundstream system, and the 44.1 kHz Redbook standard took over. (I first noticed the sample rate change with the Dohnanyi/Cleveland Beethoven "Eroica" Symphony LP.... The loss of "image specificity" was very apparent. It didn't have the resolution of past Telarc digitally mastered LPs..... In retrospect, it was an introduction for me to how most orchestral CDs would sound like.)
. . . where they abandoned their 3-microphone purist technique. By the time they recorded the Berlioz Requiem in Atlanta with Spano, they were using 32 microphones! (Their earlier recording of that work in Atlanta with Shaw sounds quite a bit better to me - but it's only 2Ch.)
As for the sample rate, I know you've posted before about your preference for the Soundstream 50 kHz sample rate vs. the CD sample rate of 44.1 kHz. But at the same time, you've expressed skepticism about higher sample rates, such as 24/96 and above. (Do I have that right?) If that's true, then where is the dividing line for you as far as the optimum sample rate on a PCM digital recording is concerned? As for me, I'm plenty happy with 24/96, but OTOH, some of the best recordings I know of (such as the Jansons Mahler 7 with the Concertgebouw Orchestra, or Gatti's recording of the Bruckner 9 with the same orchestra) are in my library in their 24/352.8 (DXD) download incarnations - the exact resolution of the master, and they're among the absolute best recordings I've ever heard. (Of course, the Amsterdam Concertgebouw venue itself helps in this regard!)
I guess someone might be diligent enough to find out when Telarc got rid of the "three mic" recording technique or switched to 44.1 kHz mastered LPs..... Mind you, at the time, nobody really questioned the lower sample rate..... (I just noticed that the later vinyl releases just lost resolution.... I wasn't even aware of the change initially.) It took about five to ten years to realize it may have not quite passed "audiophile" muster, while consumers were becoming aware of the digital format's shortcomings."As for the sample rate, I know you've posted before about your preference for the Soundstream 50 kHz sample rate vs. the CD sample rate of 44.1 kHz. But at the same time, you've expressed skepticism about higher sample rates, such as 24/96 and above. (Do I have that right?)"
Exactly.... The 50 kHz rate I've only heard on vinyl.... There was no active digital processing going on, so no RFI was being generated..... The same would hold true listening to vinyl mastered at 24/96 and above.....
My disdain for 24/96 and higher rates lies purely with *active* digital audio playback, where the processor is crunching data in real time..... This generates RFI that's several times greater than CD playback.... I've found that taming the RFI-induced sonic artifacts with CD playback, while extremely difficult, is still possible..... I cannot say the same for playing high-resolution digital formats.
"If that's true, then where is the dividing line for you as far as the optimum sample rate on a PCM digital recording is concerned?"
I think had CDs used the same rate as the old 50 kHz Soundstream format, digital audio may have taken a totally different course, and may not have even gone to higher resolution options...... I thought the only refinement needed would have been better filtering, and that's it......
On the flip side, had the CD used the 50 kHz sample rate, vinyl may have gone the way of the 8-track tape........ The 44.1 kHz rate created a "resolution" conundrum that ended up sparing vinyl as a viable consumer and audiophile music playback format. There weren't enough really satisfying CD playback systems to sway the loyal vinyl enthusiasts to the CD format... Getting the top octave right with the 44.1 kHz rate has been sort of a black art in itself, too many CD players just weren't listenable enough to make audiophiles abandon vinyl. (I almost gave up on CD personally.) The higher resolution formats were supposed to solve the "top octave" problem, but they turned out to be even less listenable than CD. (If high-rez digital formats were listenable, that's all we would be talking about now.)
And conversely, I think MP3 became popular simply because it was more listenable than CD and higher resolution formats, due to less RFI generated.... The loss of resolution notwithstanding. (I ran a test here a while back on AA, most people preferred a 320kbps MP3 converted track over the native 44.1 kHz track with the same musical passage.)
"As for me, I'm plenty happy with 24/96, but OTOH, some of the best recordings I know of (such as the Jansons Mahler 7 with the Concertgebouw Orchestra, or Gatti's recording of the Bruckner 9 with the same orchestra) are in my library in their 24/352.8 (DXD) download incarnations - the exact resolution of the master, and they're among the absolute best recordings I've ever heard. (Of course, the Amsterdam Concertgebouw venue itself helps in this regard!)"
I've not heard one bad comment about the Concertgebouw.... Back when I attended Cleveland Orchestra concerts at Severance Hall during the early 1980s, I would often talk to the musicians as they were warming up..... They all raved about the Concertgebouw, not only being great acoustically for the patrons, but for the musicians as well.
As for the resolution and sample rates, I do hear loss of resolution in CD relative to vinyl, and it probably exists relative to 24/96 or higher..... If I were to come across a playback system that doesn't make my ears bleed while listening to active high-resolution digital formats, I'd trumpet its praises all over Audio Asylum.
Edits: 03/25/21 03/25/21
I don't agree with some (or maybe even most) of what you mentioned, but I do give you credit for consistency with your previous posts! ;-)
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: