On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:34:40 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
This all started with the tiny diaphragm mics, and a feeling that they
were somehow deficient, Dave Plowman thought they had compressed
dynamics, and I hope I have laid that to rest. What they do have is
limited dynamic range on account of poor noise performance.

Well, that *could* be said to compress the dynamics if you're approaching
the peak SPL with some parts of the waveform - even although it might not
sound like clipping?


True enough, but that applies to anything. was that what you were
talking about when you made the comment, though?

It's a bit like what some complained about on the Quad 33 pre-amp when
using the high gain setting for something like a V-15 cartridge. Nothing
you could quite put your finger on - it just lost that certain something,
like say transparency? And explained by the rather low HT rail for that
amount of gain.

what they also have is perhaps too much accuracy, which makes them, to
some ears, rather soulless. Now when you are in the business of
producing exciting sounds, that can only be a bad thing, but if what you
are after is accurate reproduction of a performance, it is really rather
good.

I'm most often just concerned with dialogue. ;-)

ah - the hardest thing of all to get right.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
Yes. You have mentioned this before. Perhaps this was
a multiple set up for a number of different concerts? The BBC
know St John's well. They, if anyone, have the expertise to get
it right first time without having to rig an alternative set up. But
maybe as you say they wanted to make some comparisons. It would
be interesting to hear the recordings.

We're trying to set up an IBS meeting where we can listen to the various
configurations off multi-track in the truck where they were
balanced/recorded.

But unfortunately that will be another 'closed' group. ;-)

--
*Do they ever shut up on your planet?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:29:08 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

Further to earlier discussion on UKRA
I have been thinking about the use of large capsule
condensers for cymbals, and why despite the far greater
risk of a large mic being hit by a drum stick, that they
are the microphone of choice for most.

A Swedish engineer with whom I have worked
often, thought that a Neumann87 has a lot more
"subtlety" than a small capsule mic such as an 84
It certainly has nothing to do with compression.

Small diaphragm mics work well on snare and hi-hat
(not much subtlety the-)

A good example of "cymbal subtlety" below:
It's just a 51 sec extract, taken from my showreel.
Listen to what the drummer plays left and right,
and also to the hi-hat.

Hope it survives the conversion to .-mp3

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches/Music/Cymbals.mp3

Iain



One other question, though. Was that two drummers, or a fifty foot
wide drum kit?

They wanted a "spread" kit. I was happy to oblige:-)
It does indeed sound like two drummers (cross patterns)
It's actually only one drummer, but a double kit, two bass drums,
two snares (one deep one shallow) four toms, two ride cymbals,
one crash and one zizzle plus hi hat.

With a large kit like this one, the increased width in the recording
allows the listener to pick out the detail more easily, because
the hi-hat is not too close to the ride cymbal etc etc.
I think the extract illustrates this point well.

Iain



Hi Iain and everyone,

An interesting enjoyable clip. You can certainly pick out the detail and
cymbal subtlety but as Don says it does seem a lot of spread...suppose it
depends on the clients priorities of sound stage Vs effects but if thats
what the client wants I guess no ones going to argue. I'd be interested in
how approximately were the cymbal/hi hat mics positioned?
Some folk do seem to like 20' pianos on recordings but for me it's
artificial, I like to 'see' someone sitting at a properly scaled piano
within a believable part of the soundstage.....but hey, I can't help being a
soundstage junkie is all part of the affliction ;-)... I know it takes a
lot of skill & patience to record a piano its just so very nice when its
done right imo.
Your post just reminded me that I've still got a Jecklin disc knocking
around that I used for broadcast recordings - mono compatability & all that,
but was never wholly convinced by it. The later one.. can't recall its name,
the one with the two hemispherical bumps either side, that was quite a bit
better.
How's the shellac transfers going?

Mike

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
This all started with the tiny diaphragm mics, and a feeling that
they were somehow deficient, Dave Plowman thought they had compressed
dynamics, and I hope I have laid that to rest. What they do have is
limited dynamic range on account of poor noise performance.

Well, that *could* be said to compress the dynamics if you're
approaching the peak SPL with some parts of the waveform - even
although it might not sound like clipping?


True enough, but that applies to anything. was that what you were
talking about when you made the comment, though?

I did say it was a point for discussion rather than a firm view - since I
didn't really know how to put the problem into firm technical terms.
Hence the 'lacked balls', etc.

It's a bit like what some complained about on the Quad 33 pre-amp when
using the high gain setting for something like a V-15 cartridge.
Nothing you could quite put your finger on - it just lost that certain
something, like say transparency? And explained by the rather low HT
rail for that amount of gain.

what they also have is perhaps too much accuracy, which makes them,
to some ears, rather soulless. Now when you are in the business of
producing exciting sounds, that can only be a bad thing, but if what
you are after is accurate reproduction of a performance, it is really
rather good.

I'm most often just concerned with dialogue. ;-)

ah - the hardest thing of all to get right.

True in some ways in that everyone hears live speech all the time. Very
few will be so familiar with live versus recorded music of all types that
we listen to at home.

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:09:10 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
This all started with the tiny diaphragm mics, and a feeling that
they were somehow deficient, Dave Plowman thought they had compressed
dynamics, and I hope I have laid that to rest. What they do have is
limited dynamic range on account of poor noise performance.

Well, that *could* be said to compress the dynamics if you're
approaching the peak SPL with some parts of the waveform - even
although it might not sound like clipping?


True enough, but that applies to anything. was that what you were
talking about when you made the comment, though?

I did say it was a point for discussion rather than a firm view - since I
didn't really know how to put the problem into firm technical terms.
Hence the 'lacked balls', etc.


OK - I think this all boils down to the fundamental
"characterfullness" of the average LD mic compared to the rather
surgical sound of the very small one. It is then just a matter of how
you interpret and describe that difference.

It's a bit like what some complained about on the Quad 33 pre-amp when
using the high gain setting for something like a V-15 cartridge.
Nothing you could quite put your finger on - it just lost that certain
something, like say transparency? And explained by the rather low HT
rail for that amount of gain.

what they also have is perhaps too much accuracy, which makes them,
to some ears, rather soulless. Now when you are in the business of
producing exciting sounds, that can only be a bad thing, but if what
you are after is accurate reproduction of a performance, it is really
rather good.

I'm most often just concerned with dialogue. ;-)

ah - the hardest thing of all to get right.

True in some ways in that everyone hears live speech all the time. Very
few will be so familiar with live versus recorded music of all types that
we listen to at home.

My test of speakers is to play an anechoic recording of speech
(somebody I know well). I then close my eyes, and try to decide if I
could be fooled into thinking that person was actually standing there
talking. So far the Quad is the nearest I have come, by quite a long
way.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
Yes. You have mentioned this before. Perhaps this was
a multiple set up for a number of different concerts? The BBC
know St John's well. They, if anyone, have the expertise to get
it right first time without having to rig an alternative set up. But
maybe as you say they wanted to make some comparisons. It would
be interesting to hear the recordings.

We're trying to set up an IBS meeting where we can listen to the various
configurations off multi-track in the truck where they were
balanced/recorded.

But unfortunately that will be another 'closed' group. ;-)

I am sure that those interested here have a suitable professional
background for membership of the IBS and could join the group,
especially if seconded by existing member:-)

Iain

"Mike Gilmour" wrote in message
...

An interesting enjoyable clip. You can certainly pick out the detail and
cymbal subtlety but as Don says it does seem a lot of spread...suppose it
depends on the clients priorities of sound stage Vs effects but if thats
what the client wants I guess no ones going to argue.

When the recording is being made, there are as many
opinions/points of view as there are people in the control room:-)
So unless decisions are unanimous, it takes a lot of demonstration
plus trial and error to arrive at what seems to be required for
the project in hand.

As I mentioned before, a double kit can sound cluttered
and confused without careful positioning. Increasing the spread
helps this. If the two bass drums are tuned identically, I usually
superimpose them both C. If not, a little spread, about the same
as their physical distance apart seems to work well.

I'd be interested in how approximately were the cymbal/hi hat mics
positioned?

Hi hat just far enough of the top cymbal to allow it to open an
close. 84 with attenuator.

Both ride cymbal microphones mounted on full size orchestral
booms, looking down over the top, and aligned with the front
edge with enough distance to allow the cymbal to swing on a
heavy hit, and not strike the microphone. I go for a placing
like this because one can hear the compression/Doppler
effect as the cymbal swings towards the mic (but not on the
example which I posted) It's subtle, but interesting.

Zizzle cymbal mic close enought to be able to count the rivets:-)

Some folk do seem to like 20' pianos on recordings but for me it's
artificial, I like to 'see' someone sitting at a properly scaled piano
within a believable part of the soundstage.....but hey, I can't help being
a soundstage junkie is all part of the affliction ;-)... I know it takes
a lot of skill & patience to record a piano its just so very nice when its
done right imo.

Yes. agreed. One has to decide all these things to fit the project
and the music being recorded. Many jazz trio recordings were made
with bass left, piano right and drums centre. This works well.
There are many combinations, all with their weak and strong points.

Your post just reminded me that I've still got a Jecklin disc knocking
around that I used for broadcast recordings - mono compatibility & all
that, but was never wholly convinced by it. The later one.. can't recall
its name, the one with the two hemispherical bumps either side, that was
quite a bit better.

It would be interesting to hear.

How's the shellac transfers going?

I will post it tomorrow.

Cheers

Iain

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:34:40 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
This all started with the tiny diaphragm mics, and a feeling that they
were somehow deficient, Dave Plowman thought they had compressed
dynamics, and I hope I have laid that to rest. What they do have is
limited dynamic range on account of poor noise performance.

Well, that *could* be said to compress the dynamics if you're approaching
the peak SPL with some parts of the waveform - even although it might not
sound like clipping?


True enough, but that applies to anything. was that what you were
talking about when you made the comment, though?

It's a bit like what some complained about on the Quad 33 pre-amp when
using the high gain setting for something like a V-15 cartridge. Nothing
you could quite put your finger on - it just lost that certain something,
like say transparency? And explained by the rather low HT rail for that
amount of gain.

what they also have is perhaps too much accuracy, which makes them, to
some ears, rather soulless. Now when you are in the business of
producing exciting sounds, that can only be a bad thing, but if what you
are after is accurate reproduction of a performance, it is really rather
good.

I'm most often just concerned with dialogue. ;-)

ah - the hardest thing of all to get right.

Yes indeed.
Dave should have omitted the word "just" from his reply:-)

Iain

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

A you say, this is a venue they know well, and they can probably set
up there and record with virtually no adjustments. I guess that in
addition to the standard broadcast setup, they try a bunch of "what
if"s at every venue - jut so they know.

Smith Sq is also used by the UK record labels, all of which
seem to use a pretty standard set up. To actually record
(rather than just audition) several alternative setups,
requires quite a lot of extra equipment and monitoring,
unless they just checked the levels for each system at
rehearsal and then fed them straight to a digitalmultitrack,
in pairs of LR channels, while concentrating on the broadcast
feed.

One would have thought it would have been good PR for the BBC
to set up a listening session, at some date after the concert,
to which various prestigious bods and mags could be invited.

Iain

Don Pearce wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:29:08 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

Further to earlier discussion on UKRA
I have been thinking about the use of large capsule
condensers for cymbals, and why despite the far greater
risk of a large mic being hit by a drum stick, that they
are the microphone of choice for most.

I don't know about LD mics being the mic of choice for most.
Maybe some time ago...

A Swedish engineer with whom I have worked
often, thought that a Neumann87 has a lot more
"subtlety" than a small capsule mic such as an 84
It certainly has nothing to do with compression.

LD mics generally have relatively large high end, on-axis
peaks. Sometimes the peaks aren't just large, they are HUGE.
High end peaks are partially technically justified in LD
mics because this is required for them to have relatively
flat random incidence (reverberent field) response.

Small diaphragm mics work well on snare and hi-hat
(not much subtlety the-)

Indeed. Not only are small diaphragm mics (usually 3/4" down
to 1/2") used with snares and cymbals, even miniature
diaphragm mics (1/2" and smaller) are prized for the same
application.

A good example of "cymbal subtlety" below:
It's just a 51 sec extract, taken from my showreel.
Listen to what the drummer plays left and right,
and also to the hi-hat.

Hope it survives the conversion to .-mp3

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches/Music/Cymbals.mp3

It would seem like the resolution of a controversy about LD
versus SD mics would require actual relevant evidence. IOW,
recordings of the same performance made with both kinds of
mics.


Very nice sound! As for subtlety - well that is an
adjective, and I
guess that as it is used out of context, it can mean
pretty much
whatever he chooses it to mean.

Exactly. All we have here is an isolated example of
something that sounds kinda nice.


You are pushing against an open door here, though.

Interesting figure of speech. It seems to fit.

I love the sound of large diaphragm condensers in the
right application. That application
is of course the creation of a certain sound and ambience.
But I have
no illusions about their accuracy - indeed, who cares
about that?

Some of us do care about accuracy of reproduction. However,
the process of recording admits a lot of judgement calls in
that regard. Since facsimile reproduction is impossible at
the current state of the electroacoustic arts, all
recordings are the results of any number of judgement calls.

The clip you provided is a perfect illustration of where
and why you
would use one.

Perhaps.

But suppose you were trying to catch the subtlety of a
symphony orchestra with a crossed pair - accuracy being a
prime
concern - you wouldn't even consider a LD mic, would you?

Coincident pairs of LD mics are controversial, but they
aren't totally avoided.

OK - you are
now going to find someone who has, and it worked. But I'm
sure you get
the general picture.

I don't see the general picture. While I don't like LD mics,
I see considerable wiggle room when it comes to their use in
coincident pairs. I think that when they are avoided they
are avoided on intuitive grounds, being that large mics are
far more difficult to make truely coincident due to their
size.

This all started with the tiny diaphragm mics, and a
feeling that they
were somehow deficient, Dave Plowman thought they had
compressed
dynamics, and I hope I have laid that to rest.

Indeed.

What they do have is
limited dynamic range on account of poor noise
performance.

In most applications no apologies need to be made for the
background noise performance of the better, quieter SD mics.

what they
also have is perhaps too much accuracy, which makes them,
to some
ears, rather soulless.

I find that accuracy is far easier to give away than it is
to find by random means or otherwise obtain after the fact.

Now when you are in the business of producing
exciting sounds, that can only be a bad thing, but if what
you are
after is accurate reproduction of a performance, it is
really rather
good.

Artificial excitement is not an oxymoron, and its fairly
easy to obtain when the only means at hand are artificial.
Artificial naturalness IS an oxymoron, and it is often very
hard to obtain when the only means at hand are artificial.