"Mike Coatham" wrote in message
...
On 16/02/2010 11:20 a.m., Keith G wrote:
snip

"The analogy even extends to the recordings. In early 1953, Paray and
the DSO cut their first records for Mercury, which had startled the
hi-fi world in 1951 with the unprecedented clarity and musicality of an
acclaimed series of albums using a single microphone and no
equalization, filtering, mixing or compression.

Isn't that basically what Dave Plowman stated in regard to single
microphone recordings of big bands??



No idea, I don't see his posts unless 'quoted'.

('Single microphone recording'? - I thought I was the only person on the
planet recording *mono*!)


Which (if I also recall correctly)was
immediately poo poo'd by God's gift to recording engineers - Mr Churches
and supported by your good self?
I could be wrong, but I'm sure you'll be able to clarify one way or
another .


I've no idea what you are referring to - maybe summat about 'big bands' if
it was Iain? - Which are a different kettle of fish to 'orchestral'; their
typical 'single line-up' layout is significantly different to the layout of
orchestras and ensembles and there is usually the need to bring instruments
forward for featured solo or section parts in the music - all of which is
better served by multi-miking, I gather.

You appear to have not seen my 'two mics/two speakers/two ears' remarks a
while back, or even any of the comments I've made when I have said I am not
even much of a fan of 'stereo' - especially if/when it involves 20 foot wide
pianos and guitar or violin soloists hopping backwards and forwards from
speaker to speaker? No?

You appear also to have not seen any of my remarks about my preference for
the pre-digital and often pre-solid state *natural sound* of stuff from the
50s/60s/70s and very early 80s, the 'Slavics' Melodiya, Supraphon and
Hungaroton, in particular - all of which will almost certainly have been
recorded with simple mic pairs or very nearly as sparse setups like the 3
mic Mercury 'Living Presence' recording I was referring to?

What you *do* appear to have seen is a lot of bleating from the recently
collapsed netbully Anus about 'Iain and Kitty and Bill' - which is a shame
because it demonstrates yet again that you 'floating voters' (the lurkers
that Pucci denies exist) are incapable of assessing situations clearly for
yourselves, which explains how you have all been so easily herded around and
told what to think for so long!

Those that didn't say ****it and simply leave, that is....

Reminds me I've seen a lot of BS from certain quarters recently that make a
big deal about their 'stereo' worship rercodings whilst banging on at great
length about desks, faders &c. &c. and how particular sliders 'fit their
hands nicely' &c....??

;-)

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coatham" wrote in message
...
On 16/02/2010 11:20 a.m., Keith G wrote:
snip

"The analogy even extends to the recordings. In early 1953, Paray and
the DSO cut their first records for Mercury, which had startled the
hi-fi world in 1951 with the unprecedented clarity and musicality of an
acclaimed series of albums using a single microphone and no
equalization, filtering, mixing or compression.

Isn't that basically what Dave Plowman stated in regard to single
microphone recordings of big bands?? Which (if I also recall
correctly)was immediately poo poo'd by God's gift to recording
engineers -
Mr Churches and supported by your good self?
I could be wrong, ..... (snip)

Yes. You are wrong, in that you are trying to compare
two totally different genres requiring very different
recording techniques. You cannot compare single
mic classical recordings of Paray/Detroit Symphony
in mono,


Iain, that is a 'stereo' recording, but quite *how* stereo I wouldn't like
to say: all I can say is that it is clear and detailed and the point made
about the deliberately clear direction 'for stereo' is very well
demonstrated.



If you listen to the finest live or studio big band
recordings from the mid fifties onwards, Ellington,
Basie, Kenton,Woody Herman Ted Heath etc,
(Ellington At Newport 1956 is a perfect example)
you will find they are all multi mic. Ask yourself
why, if a simple pair alone would suffice.



A very good point well made - if only the 'lurkers' would think a little
before they swung in on the latest rope the likes of Anus and his Pooch had
set up for them!

I think where it all starts to go wrong is the ludicrous concept that
relentless yapping (shouting down?) about recording by one or two here could
possibly establish them as having greater expertise than genuine, working
recording professionals who are probably totally unaware of the existence
this pathetic little viper's nest, much less bothered about what's said
here!!

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote

The objectives in recording are totally different.

I don't buy it.

Perhaps you have never really considered
what the difference inrequirements and objectives
might be. See below (Clip included)

In big band recording, the objective is to record a
close up hard hitting image (listen to Buddy Rich)
In classical recording the objective is to record a
performance set back in its acoustic environment.
Two totally different techniques are required, which
is why since the fifties up to the present day, the finest
big band recordings have been multi mic, and the
finest classical recordings are made with pairs, or
trees often with outriggers.


What sort of "classical" are you talking about here? Plainsong or
Gershwin?, Bach or Wagner?

I am talking about the excellent Paray/DSO recordings
for Mercury, as mentioned by theOP. But as far as
classical recording is concerned, one can apply
the same basic pair or tree techniques to anything from
a Bach work for solo cembalo to a Wagner opera.

If you are suggesting that Big Bands require a different
technique how can you lump all of those very different
styles together?

I am not "suggesting". It is well known, and the difference
in requirement is the reason why all good big band recordings
are multi mic. The recording objectives, and the expectation
of the listener are totally different to classical recording.

Take a listen to this typical straighforward 1960's
clip, and then consider the following three simple
requirements. How, with your stereo pair, are you
going to split the saxophones, add cross-over reverb,
and use a short pre-delay on the trombone reverb
when the producer, the client, the conductor and the
arranger all ask you to do so?)

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...dExample01.mp3


And as you yourself have said so often a recording studio doesn't
really have an "accoustic environment".

It doesn't have an acoustic enviroment you can hear
on recording due to the common use of acoustic
screens, which give a high level of separation and
prevent acoustic leakage mic to mic which would
otherwise be present. Also various sections of the
recording rhythm, brass and string sections. may
be made in different studios.

As far as I am aware the vast
majority of studio recordings of classical music use multi-miking, and
have done for many years.

Your statement is incorrect on both counts.

If you look at the inlay or sleeve notes, you
will find that very few classsical recordings
involving a full symphony orchestra, (especially
large works with full percussion, double ww and chorus)
are made in studios. Most are recorded in outside
locations, with pairs or trees, and not multi-mic
(in the true sense of close section or close spot mics)
as can plainly be heard.

In contrast, good big band recordings, if they are not
concerts, are usually made in studios, and invariably
close multi-mic. Again, reference to inlay cards,
sleeve notes, session pics, and careful listening will
confirm this.

Regards
Iain

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coatham" wrote in message
...
On 16/02/2010 11:20 a.m., Keith G wrote:
snip

"The analogy even extends to the recordings. In early 1953, Paray and
the DSO cut their first records for Mercury, which had startled the
hi-fi world in 1951 with the unprecedented clarity and musicality of an
acclaimed series of albums using a single microphone and no
equalization, filtering, mixing or compression.

Isn't that basically what Dave Plowman stated in regard to single
microphone recordings of big bands?? Which (if I also recall
correctly)was immediately poo poo'd by God's gift to recording
engineers -
Mr Churches and supported by your good self?
I could be wrong, ..... (snip)

Yes. You are wrong, in that you are trying to compare
two totally different genres requiring very different
recording techniques. You cannot compare single
mic classical recordings of Paray/Detroit Symphony
in mono,


Iain, that is a 'stereo' recording, but quite *how* stereo I wouldn't like
to say: all I can say is that it is clear and detailed and the point made
about the deliberately clear direction 'for stereo' is very well
demonstrated.

Yes, understood. What I wrote was in reference to the 1951
recordings, but the comparison with a big band recording and
and any classical recording, made with a pair, or tree or tree
with outriggers still stands.


If you listen to the finest live or studio big band
recordings from the mid fifties onwards, Ellington,
Basie, Kenton,Woody Herman Ted Heath etc,
(Ellington At Newport 1956 is a perfect example)
you will find they are all multi mic. Ask yourself
why, if a simple pair alone would suffice.

A very good point well made - if only the 'lurkers' would think a little
before they swung in on the latest rope the likes of Anus and his Pooch
had set up for them!


I posted a link in my previous post to illustrate
the point. Up to now, David seems to find it
impossible to accept that the technical requirements
and listener expectations for a big band recording
are totally different to a classical project.

This is understandable.

Talking about it, and actually doing it to meet the
requirements of professional producers, clients,
musicians, and discerning listeners are two very
different things:-)


Iain

"Iain Churches" wrote

I posted a link in my previous post to illustrate
the point. Up to now, David seems to find it
impossible to accept that the technical requirements
and listener expectations for a big band recording
are totally different to a classical project.

This is understandable.

You are continuing to use the terms "Big Band" and "Classical" as though
they were similar, they aren't. "Big Band" refers to one very specific
musical style that arose in the US in the 1930s, and remains the same today.
"Classical" can mean anything from the earliest days of "ancient music",
religious and secular, to "contemporary" music written in the 21st C. It
could be anything from unaccompanied voice or chamber music to an enhanced
symphony. Whist some "classical" is far closer in sound to the Big Band than
it is to most other classical music.

Frankly the notion that the very consistant style of the Big Band requires
one type of recording, and *everything else* uses a second type of recording
makes no sense.

David.

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote

The objectives in recording are totally different.

I don't buy it.

Perhaps you have never really considered
what the difference inrequirements and objectives
might be. See below (Clip included)

In big band recording, the objective is to record a
close up hard hitting image (listen to Buddy Rich)
In classical recording the objective is to record a
performance set back in its acoustic environment.
Two totally different techniques are required, which
is why since the fifties up to the present day, the finest
big band recordings have been multi mic, and the
finest classical recordings are made with pairs, or
trees often with outriggers.


What sort of "classical" are you talking about here? Plainsong or
Gershwin?, Bach or Wagner?


None of those composers were 'classical' - that's a blanket category you
find (used to find) in record shops.

Bach was Baroque bloke (need to be a Yank for that to work), Wagner was a
pedantic Romantic and Gershwin was a frantic transatlantic...

Please see here to see how many famous composers were *not* 'classical':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...usic_composers

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote

The objectives in recording are totally different.

I don't buy it.

Perhaps you have never really considered
what the difference inrequirements and objectives
might be. See below (Clip included)

In big band recording, the objective is to record a
close up hard hitting image (listen to Buddy Rich)
In classical recording the objective is to record a
performance set back in its acoustic environment.
Two totally different techniques are required, which
is why since the fifties up to the present day, the finest
big band recordings have been multi mic, and the
finest classical recordings are made with pairs, or
trees often with outriggers.


What sort of "classical" are you talking about here? Plainsong or
Gershwin?, Bach or Wagner?


None of those composers were 'classical' - that's a blanket category you
find (used to find) in record shops.

Bach was Baroque bloke (need to be a Yank for that to work), Wagner was a
pedantic Romantic and Gershwin was a frantic transatlantic...

Please see here to see how many famous composers were *not* 'classical':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...usic_composers

That's my point.

Iain is lumping them all together and declaring that one technique is
appropriate for all of them (but a different one required for Big Bands).

David.

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote


If you listen to the finest live or studio big band
recordings from the mid fifties onwards, Ellington,
Basie, Kenton,Woody Herman Ted Heath etc,
(Ellington At Newport 1956 is a perfect example)
you will find they are all multi mic. Ask yourself
why, if a simple pair alone would suffice.

A very good point well made - if only the 'lurkers' would think a little
before they swung in on the latest rope the likes of Anus and his Pooch
had set up for them!


I posted a link in my previous post to illustrate
the point. Up to now, David seems to find it
impossible to accept that the technical requirements
and listener expectations for a big band recording
are totally different to a classical project.

This is understandable.

Talking about it, and actually doing it to meet the
requirements of professional producers, clients,
musicians, and discerning listeners are two very
different things:-)



Exactly. For ages, the Googlers, cut & pasters and yappers here banked on
no-one with actual *hands on* turning up....

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Exactly. For ages, the Googlers, cut & pasters and yappers here banked
on no-one with actual *hands on* turning up....

It's rather sad one of those here who claims such experience demonstrates
an extremely narrow view of even the little part of the industry he works
in.

--
*Caution: I drive like you do.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message

In article ,
Keith G wrote:

Exactly. For ages, the Googlers, cut & pasters and
yappers here banked on no-one with actual *hands on*
turning up....

It's rather sad one of those here who claims such
experience demonstrates an extremely narrow view of even
the little part of the industry he works in.

I see the another funny thing - Kitty pretending to be able to be a judge of
hands on experience. Looking at the mics he has for sale, it appears that he
is no better a judge of hands-on experience than he is of equipment to go
hands-on with! ;-)