On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:09:44 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Andy Evans" wrote in
message
oups.com

Naxos is reportedly moving away from SACD and
concentrating on plain old vanilla CDs.

Sounds like a good idea.

Is this typical of the industry?

Word has it that DVD-A is dying and only Sony's deep pockets are keeping
SACD afloat. Remember beta?

I remember at the time that many people in broadcast and duplicating
thought that Beta was superior. In fact there were some companies
using Beta for local ENG.

How are the masters normally recorded
these days in the classical music world - 96/24 or what?

Probably. But, so what?

Yes. 96/24, probably without exception. To allow what
Tony Griffiths describes as "professional headroom" :-))

I cite the classical market as being 'quality sound' so
it would be interesting to know where all this is going
in the short term (and indeed the medium/long term).

I am glad that you regard the classical market as quality,
Andy. When I go to a classical mastering session, I can
reckon to be in and out in a couple of hours. For a pop
session one needs to take a sleeping bag:-)

Perhaps because you simply have to *record* a classical orchestra?
With pop, you have to transform what they do into something vaguely
reminiscent of music - noise gates, compresors, limiters, pitch
shifters, multiple track/take splicing etc etc etc. :-(
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:09:44 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

I am glad that you regard the classical market as quality,
Andy. When I go to a classical mastering session, I can
reckon to be in and out in a couple of hours. For a pop
session one needs to take a sleeping bag:-)


Perhaps because you simply have to *record* a classical orchestra?
With pop, you have to transform what they do into something vaguely
reminiscent of music - noise gates, compresors, limiters, pitch
shifters, multiple track/take splicing etc etc etc. :-(

But Iain has written many times recently that he doesn't just record
the sound of a classical performance. He's an artist and chooses his
microphones carefully to give the most musical frequency response and
distortion. The result is even better than the real thing.

Someone who just wanted to accurately record an orchestra wouldn't have written:
...and just a touch of reverb to bring it to perfection.

--
Eiron

There's something scary about stupidity made coherent - Tom Stoppard.

"Eiron" wrote in message
...

Someone who just wanted to accurately record an orchestra wouldn't have
written:
...and just a touch of reverb to bring it to perfection.

Please re-read what I wrote. This was in relation to recording a vocal on a
multitrack session, Eiron, and nothing to do with recording an orchestra.

Hopefully you appreciate the difference:-)
regards
Iain

"Eiron" wrote in message

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:09:44 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

I am glad that you regard the classical market as
quality, Andy. When I go to a classical mastering
session, I can reckon to be in and out in a couple of
hours. For a pop session one needs to take a sleeping
bag:-)

Perhaps because you simply have to *record* a classical
orchestra? With pop, you have to transform what they do
into something vaguely reminiscent of music - noise
gates, compresors, limiters, pitch shifters, multiple
track/take splicing etc etc etc. :-(

Not only that, but its far easier to record a great orchestra in a great
room with the best top-of-the-line equipment than try to squeeze an
acceptable-sounding recording out of a bunch of amateurs and semi-pros
working in a horrid-sounding room with inexpensive gear.

It's also easier when you have a major record company full of people doing
most of the dog work for you, and covering for you when you screw up.

But Iain has written many times recently that he doesn't
just record the sound of a classical performance. He's an artist and
chooses his microphones carefully to give the most
musical frequency response and distortion. The result is
even better than the real thing.

Obviously, at some point people lose track of what the real thing is.

Someone who just wanted to accurately record an orchestra
wouldn't have written:

...and just a touch of reverb to bring it to perfection.

Exactly. Thanks Eiron for the opportunity to watch Iain do his incredible
edible dissembling act, again.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Eiron" wrote in message

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:09:44 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

I am glad that you regard the classical market as
quality, Andy. When I go to a classical mastering
session, I can reckon to be in and out in a couple of
hours. For a pop session one needs to take a sleeping
bag:-)

Perhaps because you simply have to *record* a classical
orchestra? With pop, you have to transform what they do
into something vaguely reminiscent of music - noise
gates, compresors, limiters, pitch shifters, multiple
track/take splicing etc etc etc. :-(

Not only that, but its far easier to record a great orchestra in a great
room with the best top-of-the-line equipment than try to squeeze an
acceptable-sounding recording out of a bunch of amateurs and semi-pros
working in a horrid-sounding room with inexpensive gear.


Hello Arny. Despite your verbosity on the subject, it is clear
that you don't have the slightest clue of how the record industry works.
As for your comments about "great orchestra in a great
room with the best top-of-the-line equipment" that too it clearly
outside your realm of experience.

In the EU About 1% of hopefuls actually secure a training
place with a major company. They spend a long time at Assistant
level. Many never get past that grade. The step to 2E (Second
Engineer) is a big one,and your achievements in both work and
study (which run side by side) are taken into consideration. A 2E
sometimes does small demo sessions. At both the major studios
where I have worked, one day a week in a small studio was put
aside for demo recordings - with singers who could not sing and
players who could not play, looking for talent. We called these
"Silk Purse" sessions. They are a great opportunity to hone basic
skills and a good chance for a 2E to get some experience
under supervision. The step to 1st Engineer is an even bigger
one, and no-one who is not ready for it ever gets that far. Many
are happy to stay at 2E level, and become very valuable team
members with a wealth of experience.

Even a first engineer with plenty of experience rarely
gets to do a large orchestral session without supervision.
The step above that is Senior Recording Engineer
(my grade for about 25 years)

It's also easier when you have a major record company full of people doing
most of the dog work for you, and covering for you when you screw up.

You are at a senior grade when you get to do large stereo orchestral
sessions. You are leading the recording team, with a senior producer
in charge of production. These sessions are horrendously expensive.
Only the most competent get to work on them. There are no
"screw ups", as you put it.

Someone who just wanted to accurately record an orchestra
wouldn't have written:

...and just a touch of reverb to bring it to perfection.

Exactly. Thanks Eiron for the opportunity to watch Iain do his incredible
edible dissembling act, again.

Arny. Eiron can be forgiven for not understanding what was being written
about a vocal overdub to a backing track on a multitrack session. He has
probably never been present at such a session, and so cannot possibly know
what is involved. A man who claims your experience in recording,
albeit with a bunch of Hallelujah tambourine bashers, should know better.

Iain

Iain Churches wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Eiron" wrote in message


Someone who just wanted to accurately record an orchestra
wouldn't have written:

...and just a touch of reverb to bring it to perfection.

Exactly. Thanks Eiron for the opportunity to watch Iain do his incredible
edible dissembling act, again.


Arny. Eiron can be forgiven for not understanding what was being written
about a vocal overdub to a backing track on a multitrack session. He has
probably never been present at such a session, and so cannot possibly know
what is involved. A man who claims your experience in recording,
albeit with a bunch of Hallelujah tambourine bashers, should know better.


What Iain wrote on March 20th is a matter of public record:

When the session was over, I used to go through the multitrack tape,
track by track and listen to what he had done. They sounded decidedly
"average" But when you put up all the tracks, with faders in almost
a straight line, you had an almost perfect mix in wonderful perspective
which required little or no EQ, and just a touch of reverb to bring it to
perfection.

He also mentioned half an orchestra's worth of instruments but no vocalist.

Anyone should be proud that what he records is better than the real thing.
Reality sucks.
When was the last live gig you attended that sounded as good as the CD?
Certainly not the last Beethoven symphony I heard. All that distortion
in the choral section, which Iain could have sweetened to taste. :-)

--
Eiron

Warning: May contain irony.

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Eiron" wrote in message


Someone who just wanted to accurately record an orchestra
wouldn't have written:

...and just a touch of reverb to bring it to perfection.

Exactly. Thanks Eiron for the opportunity to watch Iain do his incredible
edible dissembling act, again.


Arny. Eiron can be forgiven for not understanding what was being written
about a vocal overdub to a backing track on a multitrack session. He has
probably never been present at such a session, and so cannot possibly
know
what is involved. A man who claims your experience in recording,
albeit with a bunch of Hallelujah tambourine bashers, should know
better.


What Iain wrote on March 20th is a matter of public record:

When the session was over, I used to go through the multitrack tape,
track by track and listen to what he had done. They sounded decidedly
"average" But when you put up all the tracks, with faders in almost
a straight line, you had an almost perfect mix in wonderful perspective
which required little or no EQ, and just a touch of reverb to bring it to
perfection.

He also mentioned half an orchestra's worth of instruments but no
vocalist.

Anyone should be proud that what he records is better than the real thing.
Reality sucks.
When was the last live gig you attended that sounded as good as the CD?
Certainly not the last Beethoven symphony I heard. All that distortion
in the choral section, which Iain could have sweetened to taste. :-)

--


OK Eiron, I will take it a little slower for you this time and add some
pointers as your understanding of the recording process does not seem
to be too good. The key to what I wrote is "track by track"

Did you not have the savvy to realise I was referring to a
multitrack session, in this case 16 separate tracks - not sixteen
separate channels, but sixteen separate tracks - of
sections and single instruments, plus a vocal where it is
standard practice to close mic and add reverb afterwards?

I thought you were brighter:-)

Iain

"Iain Churches" wrote


snip palaver


Arny. Eiron can be forgiven for not understanding what was being written
about a vocal overdub to a backing track on a multitrack session. He has
probably never been present at such a session, and so cannot possibly know
what is involved. A man who claims your experience in recording,
albeit with a bunch of Hallelujah tambourine bashers, should know better.



That someone would eventually turn up with sufficient *real world*
experience to cut some of the silly 'technoyap' on this group was never in
doubt, in my mind - what I wondered was whether or not I'd still be here to
see it!! :-)

"Keith G" wrote in message


That someone would eventually turn up with sufficient
*real world* experience to cut some of the silly
'technoyap' on this group was never in doubt, in my mind
- what I wondered was whether or not I'd still be here to
see it!! :-)

Hmm, technoyap.

Here's a needed clue for you Keith. It's only yap if its over your head.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message


That someone would eventually turn up with sufficient
*real world* experience to cut some of the silly
'technoyap' on this group was never in doubt, in my mind
- what I wondered was whether or not I'd still be here to
see it!! :-)

Hmm, technoyap.

Here's a needed clue for you Keith. It's only yap if its over your head.



Shut up Arny - you're busted.... ;-)