In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
IME stereo recorded directly to two channels with a co-incident pair of
mics can be absolutely stunning.

There are many ways of producing stereo recordings with a
high level of realism. BTW how do you know the recording
to which you refer was made with a co-incidental pair?

If you wish a sense of 'being there' it's the usual way. Certainly not
multi-micing.

On the other hand your
average 'recorded in an acoustically dead studio onto multi-track then
mixed down to two channels' "stereo" can be very boring indeed.

In many circumstances multi-track, multi-layer, multi-mic is the only way
to achieve the desired result. You are old enough to be a Queen
or Jethor Tull fan, David. Try recording them or a hard hitting big band
with with your co-incidental pair:-)

But those aren't recorded to give the impression of being at a live
performance.

Unfortunately, there is no "one-size fits all" solution.

There never is. But adding mics to a basic soundfield can only detract
from the image. Essential for balance, maybe. But that's a different topic.

--
*Why is it considered necessary to screw down the lid of a coffin?

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

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
What make you such a **** David is that as well as babbling about
'proper stereo' you arrogantly presume other people (me, in this
instance) haven't experienced good stereo effects or, possibly, don't
even possess equipment capable of producing them - wrong both times. as
you types so often are....

Just makes you all the more weird if you have experienced it but don't
like it.

--
*A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times more memory.

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

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Maybe Arny's comment wasn't limited to "major works".

I can't comment on any of the recordings Arny has made as I don't think
I've heard any. Nor, indeed do I know if any of the CDs, etc, I own
were
ones made with your involvement, Iain. But I'm afraid the above
exchange
didn't enlighten me much one way or t'other!

Just Iain trying to be his usual superior self.



I don't Iain is having to *try* to hard in this instance, do you?


Oops, just found this o on the desk....



Hoo boy - and this whole *think* on the floor...!!

(Serves me right - it's always a disaster looking into this bloody ng before
lunch!! :-)

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Just Iain trying to be his usual superior self. I'll bet the vast
majority of recordings made - both pro and amateur - involve neither
score nor conductor.

I was talking about classical orchestral recordings.

That wasn't made clear in your response to Arny.

Amateurs need both score and conductor even more
than professionals, so you would lose your bet.

Seems you think I was referring to classical recordings?

Back to your cable-coiling:-)

Nice to see you align yourself with Phil who last made that comment. I'll
give you the same reply - I don't mine getting my hands dirty. Perhaps you
need to remove those white gloves once in a while...

--
*We have enough youth, how about a fountain of Smart?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
IME stereo recorded directly to two channels with a co-incident pair of
mics can be absolutely stunning.

There are many ways of producing stereo recordings with a
high level of realism. BTW how do you know the recording
to which you refer was made with a co-incidental pair?

If you wish a sense of 'being there' it's the usual way. Certainly not
multi-micing.

In your eagerness to denigrate multi.-microphone technique,
you are overlooking both XY and MS. These are very viable
alternatives. The devil is in the detail:-)

On the other hand your
average 'recorded in an acoustically dead studio onto multi-track then
mixed down to two channels' "stereo" can be very boring indeed.

In many circumstances multi-track, multi-layer, multi-mic is the only way
to achieve the desired result. You are old enough to be a Queen
or Jethor Tull fan, David. Try recording them or a hard hitting big band
with with your co-incidental pair:-)

But those aren't recorded to give the impression of being at a live
performance.

Agreed. But they represent what most people think of as a stereo
production.

Unfortunately, there is no "one-size fits all" solution.

There never is. But adding mics to a basic soundfield can only detract
from the image. Essential for balance, maybe. But that's a different
topic.

That's the purist approach which fails miserably in so many instances.
Expectations vary with the type of music being recorded. My example
of a hard hitting big band is a good one Dave. People expect to hear
detail. Try it with your co-incidental pair. One can quite easily
approximate the difference by attenuating all the spot mics and just
listening to the air microphones.

Iain

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Just Iain trying to be his usual superior self. I'll bet the vast
majority of recordings made - both pro and amateur - involve neither
score nor conductor.

I was talking about classical orchestral recordings.

That wasn't made clear in your response to Arny.

Amateurs need both score and conductor even more
than professionals, so you would lose your bet.

Seems you think I was referring to classical recordings?

An amateur, choir, wind ensemble, or jazz/big band with
neither conductor nor score is an even worse scenario:-)

One sometimes sees baroque ensembles with no conductor
but this is a totally different discipline, and not at all the sort
of thing that Arny is involved in.


Back to your cable-coiling:-)

Nice to see you align yourself with Phil who last made that comment.

No actually, he did not.
Phil called you "a jumped up, know nothing cable winder".
which clearly shows his lack of understanding of the work of a
sound technician in broadcast. You corrected him with a more
accurate term "coiling". A coiled cable, with each loop
reversed upon the other will open without kinks, a joy to behold.


Iain

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

I can't comment on any of the recordings Arny has made as I don't think
I've heard any.

A link to one of his recordings appeared on this NG.
You went strangely silent,. Jim,:-)

Nor, indeed do I know if any of the CDs, etc, I own were
ones made with your involvement, Iain.

You have stated many times your preference for artists
and orchestras signed to EMI, which reduces the likelyhood
of your having heard my work. However, you did express
an interest to hear something of mine, and I took the trouble
to send you by e-mail a link which, for copyright reasons,
could not be posted here. IIRC your reaction to what you
heard was very positive indeed.

But I'm afraid the above exchange
didn't enlighten me much one way or t'other!

I, and a considerable number of others on audio NGs
have grown tired of what a young student from Berklee
described as "Arny Krueger's prostitution of recording arts"

Iain

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

Iain, you give me the impression that you are nit-picking and trying to
find fault. e.g. as my own comments below...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

You should learn to read the score.

Ignores the fact that musicans usually interpret said score.

Incorrect. The conductor is reponsible for the interpretation of the
score. The musicians play what is written on the part in front of them
(they have no score) with the conductor's intepretation.

Your point being that a conductor is not a musician? :-)

Most conductors are musicians, but very few musicians are
conductors:-) One needs to understand the conductor's role
as being very distinct from that of the players.


If you as an engineer are unable to to read music, particularly as you
seem to work without a producer, you put yourself at a great
disadvantage when recording. - and editing too:-)

The size of the group playing the score can vary. Venues vary.

Indeed they do. That was never in question.

But this would presumably affect the sound level. cf below.

Yes. Of course. But most compositions are written for a particular
combination of instruments. If the work you are about to record
has an orchestera augmented with five French horns, double
brass, double woodwind, and two harps, it is greatly to your
advantage to know this before you turn up at the venue:-))
One needs to be very well prepared, and leave nothing to
chance. Familiarising oneself with the works in question is
a good way to do this. As they say: "Leave nothing to chance
nor prayer"

I am reminded of the pro musician who told of an
amateur "sacred" recording in which he had participated.

He had been booked as a stand-in first trumpet, to
lead an otherwise weak section. Each take was
preceeded by a prayer considerably longer than
the piece to be played, and studio time was
ticking away. He remarked that perhaps if the
time spent in prayer was devoted to first tuning, and
secondly careful rehearsal, before the red light went
on, this might yield a better result. His advice was
ignored, and his booking for the second day was
cancelled.



That way you will seldom if ever be caught out-))

Perhaps you misunderstand, Iain. I'm talking about how musicans play
at rehearsal, versus with an audience present.

Makes no difference. Mezzo-forte is mezzo-forte both at rehearsal and
performance.

Again, I had though that it wasn't unusual for the venue to have a
different level of sound absorption when there was an audience than when
there was none.

That's true. But one would not expect the players to compensate
for this. The absorbtion also varies with the size of the audience, and
may depend too on the clothing they are wearing:-) So there
might be a difference bertween summer and winter.

Does that not mean the relative levels in the orchestra and
out in the venue also may differ? Or that the players may play differently
in terms of the result in the venue?

The relartive levels for each venue probably differ.
But mezzo-piano remains mezzo-piano.

Iain

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
What make you such a **** David is that as well as babbling about
'proper stereo' you arrogantly presume other people (me, in this
instance) haven't experienced good stereo effects or, possibly, don't
even possess equipment capable of producing them - wrong both times. as
you types so often are....

Just makes you all the more weird if you have experienced it but don't
like it.



Weird? OK, I'm not going to argue with that - playing Country Joe And The
Fish for the plumber right this moment - he said he like 60's music (turns
out he doesn't really know any), but where did I say I don't like it
(stereo)? What I actually said was:

"A 'stereo' label on a record doesn't particularly excite me - like I have
said often before, I guess I'm too 'off axis' to care much of the time!!

Not quite the same thing, is it?

Half the problem I have with 'stereo' is that so much of it is/was poorly
done crap while mono recordings (from back then) are almost invariably
*blameless*....

Same for HT 'multichannel HD' - if it wuz up to me I'd settle for, er, plain
two (or maybe three) channel DD *stereo* because I don't need the silly
rear-speaker 'effects' and I don't like the wires!!

(Funny ole sole, ain't I? ;-)

Keith G wrote:

What make you such a **** David is that as well as babbling about
'proper stereo' you arrogantly presume other people (me, in this
instance) haven't experienced good stereo effects or, possibly, don't
even possess equipment capable of producing them - wrong both times. as
you types so often are....


I was being generous to you in allowing for the possibility that your
dismissal of good stereo was due to never having heard it. If you *have*
heard it, and still dismiss it in the way you do I wonder what on earth you
are doing in a HiFi newsgroup.

But it's not just this topic is it? You dismiss as a "****" anyone who likes
anything you don't, or doesn't like anything you do, or doesn't think about
things the way you do. "Arrogant" hardly does you justice.

David.