"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
scribeth thus

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
scribeth thus

I recall breaking out in a sweat hearing the 63s straining at a big-band
in full flight (Ted Heath, or Mike Westbrook, can't remember) And
that certainly could not be described as abuse. One has to be able to
reproduce the recording at the same level as the band played it in
the studio:-)


Same level at home too;?...

No. I am talk about studio codnditions, and the poor
suitability of the ESL63 in this environment. The players
in a big-band like the two mentioned aove expect power,
impact and a full dynamic from, "ppp" to " sffz" from
seven brass, five saxes, percussion and a rhythm section.
A monitor system in a large control room with perhaps
twenty people listening needs to be able to produce
high SPLs.


Yes well.. thats more like a PA rig then;, nothing to do with quality
assessment...


Not at all. It is quality assessment at the most critical root level
carried out by the people best suited to do it:- the producer,
the conductor, the arranger, the artists, the engineer etc etc, all
of whom have an intimate knowledge of the music being recorded.

If the balance and sound quaity does not meet expectations at the
recording or mixing stage there is very little than can be done to
improve it in mastering, and nothing whatsoever that can be done
later in the domestic listening environment.

Iain

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:18:15 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

None of the Quad designs are suitable for pro monitoring use. Only place
I know that tried was the ABC studios at Teddington, many many years
ago.
Under the control of a 'musician' rather than professional.

"Professionals" consistently do terrible things to my music.

Laurence. What do you mean exactly by "your" music?
Is this music you have written or performed, or recordings
you have bought as a consumer?

It is almost impossible to please everyone.

Sadly, in pop music, the majority rules, and mastering
fashion has reached the its current state due to the silent
approval by the vast majority of ther public, and the
lethargy of those who might appreciate something better:-)

In fact,
when amplification is involved, *I* frequently do terrible things to
my music - it's all to easy to let levels run away with themselves.

I am unsure if you lean listening levels or mixing/mastering levels

My constant plea to sound professionals is "turn it down" whether it's
overall level at a live gig or monitor levels at a recording.

I agree about live gigs, and in many cinemas also.
Do you attent many recording sessions?

Iain

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
I wasn't talking about a 'lead' guitar' I assumed you were talking
about
bass guitars. Was I wrong?

The idea is to hear the sound of the instrument, straight from the pickup
as I stated previously.

Using a DI doesn't give the sound of the instrument, though, Iain.

The sound from the pickup, without any possible additional
colouration from amp, and mic is what I suggested you evaluate.
Your valiant attempts at blowing smoke did not go un-noticed:-)).

It's all pretty academic really, as you almost
certainly will not bother to make the comparison I described:-)

It is indeed.

Do the test with the ESL and then tell me your thoughts.

BTW Dave. In the ten years or so that I have been following
this NG, I must have read hundreds of your posts - but not one
AFAICR has ever mentioned music. What do you listen to?

Iain

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

Dave wrote
None of the Quad designs are suitable for pro monitoring use. Only
place I know that tried was the ABC studios at Teddington, many many
years ago. Under the control of a 'musician' rather than professional.


LOL. So a musician is not a professional? Normally pieces of
equipment such as speakers are chosen by a panel of both
engineering and production/artistic staff. I know that at ABC
(Thames studios after 1968), the opinion of the musical
director, Ronnie Aldrich, who was a good friend of mine, was
often sought, and his view highly regarded. Was he the musician
to whom you refer?

I don't know for certain since it was before my time there - but was
sometimes discussed round the coffee table.

Perhaps the story had been enhanced over the course of time. In
actual fact the idea was not a bad one, and had been tried by EMI,
CBS, Decca etc all about the same time. It seems that all reached
the same conclusion.

The other strange speakers
used were Tannoy Autographs as tracking foldback speakers - fed via 100
volt line. But those had gone too by the time I worked there. But lived on
in legend...

Those were the GRF designed by Guy Fountain. These were found
in almost every major studio in London. Just as you say, they were
used for tracking, in our case for string sections only. String players
liked them very much, and were somewhat reluctant to adopt the
single-transducer headphones, which, due to their exceptionally low
leakage, were preferred by the control room staff.

The GRF is now one of the most-highly prized retro Tannoys.
On the rare occasions when they come up for sale, they change
hands for huge amounts of money.


Iain

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:



Sadly, in pop music, the majority rules, and mastering fashion has
reached the its current state due to the silent approval by the vast
majority of ther public, and the lethargy of those who might appreciate
something better:-)

I don't really agree with the semantic implications of the phrases "silent
approval" and "lethargy" in the above. Although I do appreciate that these
phrases probably do describe the wishful thinking and delusions of the
people who "master" music by choosing to apply high amounts of compression
and to clip.

The reality seems to me more like most people never knowing that they were
offerred any choice in the matter, or been given a chance to hear favourite
types of music *without* the compression/clipping side-by-side with the
plasticised versions. If you have no point of comparison, and no-one is
telling you what they are doing, then "silent approval" seems an odd phrase
to me. More like "mushroom farm"... :-)

Fortunately for me, the types of music I like generally have avoided the
dimwitted excess level compressions, clipping, etc. But it does bother me
that others who prefer other forms of music get this regardless.


My constant plea to sound professionals is "turn it down" whether it's
overall level at a live gig or monitor levels at a recording.

I agree about live gigs, and in many cinemas also. Do you attent many
recording sessions?

I've not been to any recording sessions except for some BBC broadcasts.
That, I guess, is very different to a commercal 'pop' recording. However
I've stopped going to 'shows' at our local theatre. They have a 'Bose'
'Sound Reinforcement' system. Sounds awful, and is usually turned up full
when there is any singing or music. Yet the theater is a small one. You can
clearly hear someone talking in a normal voice on stage, even in the back
seats which I prefer.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

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

Thank gawd I don't claim to have passed a 'Tonmeister exam'


So you that a formal education and a professional
qualification are unimportant then?

'Tonmeister' is a name that didn't exist in the UK when I were a lad.

Perhaps they are not so important for freelances but for a senior staff
position with any good studio they are a pre-requisite, in addition to
an excellent show-reel and a good reputation.

It's certainly my experience that those who have done a Tonmeister course
seem to have an air of arrogance about them. Is this part of the teaching?

When I started in broadcast sound there were no general college courses
covering the work. You did what was more akin to an apprenticeship with
your employer. And learnt from skilled operators in the field. The BBC, of
course, in addition, had their own training department which ran a number
of residential courses to add to this.

Of course the record industry may well be different. After all you've
proved how much bull**** it runs on.

Have you told your pal who used to work at ETD how much better you
consider a Tonmeister course to be than the ones he was involved in?

--
*It ain't the size, it's... er... no, it IS ..the size.

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

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
The idea is to hear the sound of the instrument, straight from the
pickup as I stated previously.

Using a DI doesn't give the sound of the instrument, though, Iain.

The sound from the pickup, without any possible additional
colouration from amp, and mic is what I suggested you evaluate.
Your valiant attempts at blowing smoke did not go un-noticed:-)).

Is stating that your 'test' is not of this world so pointless blowing
smoke, Iain? You might as well use an oscillator. A bass guitar simply
isn't a musical instrument *without* the addition of electronics, so
saying one speaker or another makes its electrical output 'sound better'
only has relevance to that individual bass gutter. So a total red herring
to this discussion. But then you have red herring coming out of every
sleeve. Tommy Cooper would have been proud of you...

It's all pretty academic really, as you almost
certainly will not bother to make the comparison I described:-)

It is indeed.

Do the test with the ESL and then tell me your thoughts.

BTW Dave. In the ten years or so that I have been following
this NG, I must have read hundreds of your posts - but not one
AFAICR has ever mentioned music. What do you listen to?

I try and keep vaguely on topic, Iain. This is a group for discussing
*audio*. There are thousands of groups out there for those that want to
discuss music. And motorbikes. And cyclists being killed. And old films.
And dead comedians. Even one dedicated to discussing vinyl.

--
*The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up *

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

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
The other strange speakers
used were Tannoy Autographs as tracking foldback speakers - fed via
100 volt line. But those had gone too by the time I worked there. But
lived on in legend...

Those were the GRF designed by Guy Fountain.

No, Iain. Autographs. The GRF is a different design. And you claim to be a
Tannoy expert...

--
*I love cats...they taste just like chicken.

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

On Tue, 5 May 2009 10:36:03 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

"Professionals" consistently do terrible things to my music.

Laurence. What do you mean exactly by "your" music?
Is this music you have written or performed, or recordings
you have bought as a consumer?


Sometimes written. Mostly performed. In live performance,
"professional" sound operators are frequently clueless with anything
except rock music, and sometimes even then. Sad, but true, even at
good-class venues and theatres, I don't do pub gigs :-)

Recording engineers are usually better. But they aren't always
listening for what I know is in the music. Sometimes their angle on
it is illuminating. Sometimes not.

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 May 2009 10:36:03 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

"Professionals" consistently do terrible things to my music.

Laurence. What do you mean exactly by "your" music?
Is this music you have written or performed, or recordings
you have bought as a consumer?


Sometimes written. Mostly performed. In live performance,
"professional" sound operators are frequently clueless with anything
except rock music, and sometimes even then. Sad, but true, even at
good-class venues and theatres, I don't do pub gigs :-)

You need to strike up a relationship with a good concert
mixer - someone who is interested in your kind of music.
He will charge no more than someone not so good/
interested/talented. Not so many venues these days seem
to have house staff, so taking your own mixer, who knows
your sound, your material and is sympathetic towards your
objectives would be greatly to your advantage.

Recording engineers are usually better. But they aren't always
listening for what I know is in the music. Sometimes their angle on
it is illuminating. Sometimes not.

This is an area where chemistry is so important.

I can recall many sessions with singer songwriters
who thought they were the bee's knees. Frequently it
turned out that the studio assistant could sing and
play their songs better than they could!


Do you produce your own material? Having a producer
to work with a good engineer gives another subjective
brain, pair of ears, and source of ideas. Pre-rpduction
is so important.


Iain

You know it ain't easy (John Lennon)