In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Are you so incapable of comprehension that you need things 'pointed
out to you'? Or is this by one of your phantom 'friends' that reads
this group but is too terrified to post themselves that you've
mentioned so often?


Even you surely must have noticed the number of interesting people who
have disappeared from this group in the past say eight years or so.

Indeed. People move on.

I am thinking in particular of two, both with BBC backgrounds.
One had been at BBC Bristol for many years, the other had,
it turned out much later, been technical director and Magnegraph
when they were in Hanway PlaceW1.

Why does the fact they have BBC backgrounds matter? Apart from to you.
obviously.

Both knew much too much about analogue, valves and disc
cutting to suit the prevailing agenda.

Heh heh. You mean they hadn't kept up with the latest developments?

You, the Flying Scotsman and The Tambourine Man quickly shut the door in
their faces.

Perhaps you know who you're referring to - I don't. And I've never shut
the door on anyone's face. Of course if I disagreed with them I'd say so.
It's called debate. If I just wanted a lecture I'd go elsewhere.

Both of these interesting people, and several others,
I am happy to say, still keep in regular touch
by e-mail.

Bully for you. I take it you're not so rude or patronising to them on that
as you are to people here? But don't you get tired of the endless back
patting - agreeing with every word said?

Perhaps it's my kind face and sunny disposition:-)

I don't quite know what you want, Iain. You seem to want polite discussion
but then provoke many with your snide comments. And get all hurt when
others reciprocate.

--
*Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?

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

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:00:58 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

What is natural about the woodwind sitting at the front
in a recording? For a concert, they sit immediately behind
the strings because their acoustic volume is less than the
brass.

Are you sure that's why?

In article i,
Iain Churches wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article i,
Iain Churches wrote:


Besides there could not be a worse place.

Explained earlier.
Even worse than the edge of the
music stand.

Not so if separation is the main goal.

Good sound is surely the main goal. Strings need
ambience, not separation.

Then you simply won't hear them at all in the situation I'm talking about.
I'm truly surprised you need this pointed out. Perhaps if you'd done any
form of live work with this sort of music you'd not make such a strange
statement.

A bsic rule of thumb, taught to every single
student of recording arts: When recording a brass
section, never sit the trumpets and trombones behind
the saxophones/woodwind. Take a look at any TV
show, you will see that they are invariable sitting in
that order.

As they are on any stage big band.
WW are always at the front.

Take a look at any of the books that deal with studio layout.
Alton Everest, John Woram.Even Tremaine has a chapter
on this. If you think about it, the optimum brass/saxes/woodwind
setup is obvious, I did not think ít up.

But a TV show isn't all about a 'studio layout' anymore than a live event
is.;

Sounds like you always want to 'improve' on nature?


What is natural about the woodwind sitting at the front
in a recording? For a concert, they sit immediately behind
the strings because their acoustic volume is less than the
brass.

A jazz orchestra has strings?

Have you not observed the difference in stage layout between classical
orchestras and dance bands of the '20s onwards?

But as soon as you start to record, or use any SR,
the matter needs to be carefully reconsidered.

In this case we're not talking about a sound only recording. A TV
performance is closer to a live event.

I think it is only natural to want to achieve the very
best result that one can in the circumstances.
Or do you say "Oh to Hell with it. Who Cares?
It's only TV!" ?

You're contradicting yourself. Much of the close micing used on TV etc is
*precisely* to get the best out of less than ideal circumstances. Like
invariably a band with a poor internal balance - especially where strings
are involved. I'm sure you've noticed the difference between the size of
the string section in a TV band compared to a classical orchestra?


Ted Heath (bandleader not politician) used to say that
the saxophones were the children of the orchestra, and
had to sit at the front. They needed his direction. Then
when the red light went on, and they began to play, most
of the players shut their eyes. It wouldn't have mattered
where they sat! Only small changes were necessary to
give the section a lot more bite and tighten the whole
sound of the band, due solely to much reduced leakage.

So Heath ignored your 'advice' regarding the brass behind the ww when on
stage? As did every other similar band leader? Wonder who was correct...

--
*A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

Have you listened to this remarkable double album?
The vocals were liften from concerts in London and
Berlin in the early 1970s. The orchestra was recorded
in 2006. Have you stopped to consider how this may
have been done.

I already know.


:-)

It would be very, very surprising indeed if you did.

There is a similar Nat King Cole project
bubbling under. If you really know how,
take it on.

I expect that projects of this type will increase in
number. There are countless legendary UK
performances made at The Marquee, The
Roundhouse and Klooks Kleek which would
lend themselves well to such treatment.


regards
Iain

In article i,
Iain Churches wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

Have you listened to this remarkable double album?
The vocals were liften from concerts in London and
Berlin in the early 1970s. The orchestra was recorded
in 2006. Have you stopped to consider how this may
have been done.

I already know.


:-)

It would be very, very surprising indeed if you did.

Be surprised, then.

--
*If only you'd use your powers for good instead of evil.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article i,
Iain Churches wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

Have you listened to this remarkable double album?
The vocals were liften from concerts in London and
Berlin in the early 1970s. The orchestra was recorded
in 2006. Have you stopped to consider how this may
have been done.

I already know.


:-)

It would be very, very surprising indeed if you did.

Be surprised, then.


I shall only be surprised when it becomes
clear that you really do know, hence my
use of the conditional tense:-)

There are a large number of very skilled music,
mixing and post production engineers who have
been trying to do something like this for a very
long time. Mr Field isn't telling, so the chances that
you *do* actually know are probably very small
indeed, unless you have read a paper that most
of the rest of us have not yet seen. The other
possibility of course is that you have not really
thought about what is actually involved and so
underestimate the complexity of the task.
But please don't think for a moment that I
doubt your ability:-)

Can I pass some work on to you? There is a huge
backlog of excellent material which could well benefit
from this kind of expertise. Some very good concert
vocal performances by Carola Standerskjöld come
to mind.


Yours. Ever 'umble
Iain

"Iain Churches" wrote


300B amps are very much preferred flavour at the moment. I
very much want to build a good SET one day. There are people on
this and other groups who have very good first hand experience, so
there is no need for me to try to re-invent the wheel.

(Sales line for an OK Chinese SET - 90% of the sonics for 10% of the
price of a true *quality* amplifier..??)

But it's the 10% which sets a good one apart:-)


As in all things - the very best costs a lot more money than the mundane!


Just been following the post mortem of a Chinese PP monobloc
The OPT was potted in a very nice stainless steel cube, which
when cut open, revealed much cat-litter filler and a miniscule
open frame transformer, the kind one used to see in cheap
radio-grams years ago.


The good thing with the Bez was that it had good, big frame trannies for all
to see. I would not bother to sport even what little money they cost to
investigate the latest wave of potted tranny/PCB triode amps form China.
Anyway - been there, done that and see below....



But, I must admit, the rest of the Chinky is very nice indeed.
Good point to point, and a high-quality stainless steel chassis.
(How do they do it for the money??) Cosmetically, it may
not be to the taste of people in ther Western world, but
that's not a major issue. There is room for a much bigger
mains transformer and OPT so these will be fitted. They
will probably turn this into a very good sounding
amplifier, still cheaper than one of the true *quality*
marques.


Yes, that was my reasoning from the outset - if swapping the trannies was
all it was going to take to make on OK (or even 'iffy') SET into a good 'un
it would still have been worthwhile!

Anyway, Iain, you can be the one to receive my pennant - I'm off now. I'm
finally fed up with seeing my efforts to keep a sickly newsgroup going being
twisted into some form of egoism!! (Seeing that surly little maggot
Plowman's remark in s.e.r. just now has convinced me that my time as an
active contributor to ukra is up.)

Add to that I'm done with 'audio' now - having taken it as far as I want to
(said so recently) and want to direct my activities elsewhere now. (Hoping
for better weather this year!)

So that's it! Ciao! :-)

"Keith G" wrote in message
...


Anyway, Iain, you can be the one to receive my pennant - I'm off now. I'm
finally fed up with seeing my efforts to keep a sickly newsgroup going
being twisted into some form of egoism!! (Seeing that surly little maggot
Plowman's remark in s.e.r. just now has convinced me that my time as an
active contributor to ukra is up.)

Add to that I'm done with 'audio' now - having taken it as far as I want
to (said so recently) and want to direct my activities elsewhere now.
(Hoping for better weather this year!)

So that's it! Ciao! :-)


Sorry to hear that Keith. But you have my e-mail address,
and I have yours, so let's keep in touch. Perhaps we can
have lunch next time I visit the UK.

Best regards
Iain

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article i,
Iain Churches wrote:


Take a look at any of the books that deal with studio layout.
Alton Everest, John Woram.Even Tremaine has a chapter
on this. If you think about it, the optimum brass/saxes/woodwind
setup is obvious, I did not think ít up.

But a TV show isn't all about a 'studio layout' anymore than a live event
is.

No indeed and that is one of the reasons why TV shows often
sound so awful. Have you ever wondered why live events often
sound much better?

Sounds like you always want to 'improve' on nature?


What is natural about the woodwind sitting at the front
in a recording? For a concert, they sit immediately behind
the strings because their acoustic volume is less than the
brass.

A jazz orchestra has strings?

Oh yes indeed. The Paul Whiteman Orchestra was the very
first jazz orchestra. Six violins.

But I was talking about a concert or symphony orchestra as
well you know.

Have you not observed the difference in stage layout between classical
orchestras and dance bands of the '20s onwards?

It started long before the 1920s. Take a look at sketches
from the Baroque era, and read what Thomas Arne had
to say circa 1760.

Were you not required to study the history of music?

Early classical setups work especially well in studio recording.
The specialist Decca label L'Oiseau Lyre used them
often to very good effect.


But as soon as you start to record, or use any SR,
the matter needs to be carefully reconsidered.

In this case we're not talking about a sound only recording. A TV
performance is closer to a live event.

Indeed. hence my mention of SR.


Ted Heath (bandleader not politician) used to say that
the saxophones were the children of the orchestra, and
had to sit at the front. They needed his direction. Then
when the red light went on, and they began to play, most
of the players shut their eyes. It wouldn't have mattered
where they sat! Only small changes were necessary to
give the section a lot more bite and tighten the whole
sound of the band, due solely to much reduced leakage.

So Heath ignored your 'advice' regarding the brass behind the ww when on
stage? As did every other similar band leader? Wonder who was correct...

I was talking specifically about recording. This setup was
also used on the many public concerts recorded by
Decca.

Surely you realise that Ted Heath was long before my time?
His career started in the early 1920's with The Jack Hylton
Orchestra at the London Queen's Hall Roof Gardens. He
had retired long before I went to Decca. I did record two
albums with the Ted Heath orchestra conducted by John Keating.
Many of the original members, inclduding Don Lusher and
Duncan Campbell were still in the band. Decca agreed to
renew the contract even after Ted Heath's death (in 1969
IIRC), so that his widow Moira Heath would have some
royalties to supplemenent her pension.

The changes in studio layout were suggested to Mr Heath by
one of my tutors Arthur Lilley - an engineer with more gold
records than any one else in the UK at that time.

Regards
Iain

In article , Keith G
scribeth thus

"Iain Churches" wrote


300B amps are very much preferred flavour at the moment. I
very much want to build a good SET one day. There are people on
this and other groups who have very good first hand experience, so
there is no need for me to try to re-invent the wheel.

(Sales line for an OK Chinese SET - 90% of the sonics for 10% of the
price of a true *quality* amplifier..??)

But it's the 10% which sets a good one apart:-)


As in all things - the very best costs a lot more money than the mundane!


Just been following the post mortem of a Chinese PP monobloc
The OPT was potted in a very nice stainless steel cube, which
when cut open, revealed much cat-litter filler and a miniscule
open frame transformer, the kind one used to see in cheap
radio-grams years ago.


The good thing with the Bez was that it had good, big frame trannies for all
to see. I would not bother to sport even what little money they cost to
investigate the latest wave of potted tranny/PCB triode amps form China.
Anyway - been there, done that and see below....



But, I must admit, the rest of the Chinky is very nice indeed.
Good point to point, and a high-quality stainless steel chassis.
(How do they do it for the money??) Cosmetically, it may
not be to the taste of people in ther Western world, but
that's not a major issue. There is room for a much bigger
mains transformer and OPT so these will be fitted. They
will probably turn this into a very good sounding
amplifier, still cheaper than one of the true *quality*
marques.


Yes, that was my reasoning from the outset - if swapping the trannies was
all it was going to take to make on OK (or even 'iffy') SET into a good 'un
it would still have been worthwhile!

Anyway, Iain, you can be the one to receive my pennant - I'm off now. I'm
finally fed up with seeing my efforts to keep a sickly newsgroup going being
twisted into some form of egoism!! (Seeing that surly little maggot
Plowman's remark in s.e.r. just now has convinced me that my time as an
active contributor to ukra is up.)

Add to that I'm done with 'audio' now - having taken it as far as I want to
(said so recently) and want to direct my activities elsewhere now. (Hoping
for better weather this year!)

So that's it! Ciao! :-)

Oi!, Stop copping the strop and get back in here before you loose your
nerve;!...






--
Tony Sayer