In article ,
David Kennedy wrote:
As I said, there is very little [if any] unprocessed sound out in main
stream recordings these days.

In general, it's difficult to find a venue with a decent acoustic which is
well enough insulated from outside unwanted noise. Plus, of course, a
decent acoustic will often mean a large hall, etc. So more expensive than
a small near soundproof room and an eko plate. ;-)

--
*Indian Driver - Smoke signals only*

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

"Keith G" wrote in message

Hi Iain, try this one with a little 'Bright Hall' reverb added - I hafta
say I quite like it myself:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...ght%20Hall.wav


But I would want to be in the habit of sloshing it into everything I
record unless I have to, of course - it's only me recording Swim on either
the alto sax or the Bb clart.


That sound quite tasteful. Maybe a tad less?

By the way, Í greatly enjoyed the interpretation of
a jazz standard played by a classical clarinettist
on alto saxophone.

Iain

"David Kennedy" wrote in message
o.uk...

I can remember some [many] years ago recording guitar with an AC30 in an
old water cistern...


Great fun! And it's good to get people guessing when they
ask "How did you do that?"

With a little imagination you can create very individual
effects. I have recorded drums at the bottom of a
six flight stair-well. The kit was spread over nine
tracks plus two for ambience. These ambience tracks
were gated long on the mix, to shut the reverb down,
cutting it dead, - a great effect.

Iain

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"David" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

OK. I added a little reverb called 'Bright Hall' to it and I also like
that (see below). Unfortunately SoudForge is a little kludgy when it
comes to this sort of thing but it seems to remain within the realms of
good taste to me! (?)

Here they both are for a back to back for easy comparison:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...octurne%20.wav

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...ght%20Hall.wav


Total layman here but to me the first sounds like a better recording and
the second sounds like a better musician.



Which further fuels the argument that the original performance is not
necessarily the deciding factor in how the final product will sound and
which is why I don't take 'distortion' claims too much to heart.


Morning Keith.

Hmm.- Interesting point, except that the original
performance can be viewed as a step to the final
product and not the final product itself. You could
regard the original as the equivalent of a pre-production
master if you like, which still requires a little reverb/sweetening.

I don't have the skill of knowledge to be able to create reverb settings
manually.

Most digital reverb units also have a large variety of
presets so that you don't have to worry about manual
settings if you don't want to. The presets also include
EQ so you don't have to think about that either,

It is good practice when adding reverb to listen
at both high and low levels and err on the side
of too little. I usually roll off the LF (low frequency)
return from the reverb, to prevent it sounding muddy.
There is not much down there which is of use to you.

A good-sounding trick is to separate the original (dry)
signal from the reverb by using a short pre-delay.
The effect is difficult to describe on words, but the
separation is rather like bouncing the reverb off a
wall before it comes back to you. Keep the reverb
pre-delay short, or it starts to sound contrived.

In a non-classical recording you can use cross-over
reverb (with the short pre-delay metioned above)
and bring it back to the opposite side of the stereo picture.
So that (for instance) trumpets on the left could have their
reverb brought back to the RH monitor, and saxophones
on the right could have their different- shorter, brighter
reverb brought back to the left.

Cheers
Iain

"David Kennedy" wrote in message
o.uk...

People have become accustomed to effects of every kind. There is very
little straight recording these days.

That is certainly true of pop music, where first impressions of a studio
are often based upon number of outboard racks full of equipment, and
not by the skill of the personnel involved in the recording.

The above said, I would tend to disagree with your assertion on
a broader basis. Most classical recordings (large and small)
are made "straight", and with as few mics as possible to achieve
the desired sound. There is more interest in the "purist" approach
now than there has even been.

Iain

"David Kennedy" wrote in message
o.uk...
Keith G wrote:

I think a little reverb flatters most music but worry this is injecting
a deliberate distortion into the recording/reproduction chain that we
see so much fuss about when it comes to stuff like the 'effects' of
using valve equipment in a recirding situation....??

True. But, the reverb [or what ever] effect could be achieved by the room
chosen for the recording...

Yes. But in this case, the room chosen was a domestic living
room, so trying to catpure the acoustic of the room (for reverb)
with a pair of air mics will do little or nothing to enhance
the result. A digital reverb is a much better solution.

Iain

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

But all the better if she can just accompany herself.

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/listen/accomp.mp3

d

I like that! And however carefully as you listen, you
can't hear the click track leaking into the headphones,
which is so often a give-away.

But this too is too dry.

Or maybe it was played from a mid-keyboard, like
dear old Arny's French horns ? :-))

For soloists requiring accompaniment, the
Hal Leonard music books with trio backing tracks
on CD are a much better proposition. There is
a huge selection. Each book has parts written in
C (concert pitch) and also transposed for Eb and
Bb instruments.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&k...12 fh137653_e

Iain

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 10:23:46 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

But all the better if she can just accompany herself.

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/listen/accomp.mp3

d

I like that! And however carefully as you listen, you
can't hear the click track leaking into the headphones,
which is so often a give-away.


Ha! Fooled you. This is a piece of Melodyne magic. I copied the
original clarinet track and shifted the notes around for the
accompaniment - so no click tracks, no Midi, no other instruments
involved.

I can't think of any other software that does what Melodyne does. If I
had taken some time over it I could have changed note lengths to make
a true accompaniment. Maybe I'll give that a go later, when I am done
wiring up my new shed. Bloody hell I chose a cold week to take off.

d

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:51:20 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 10:23:46 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

But all the better if she can just accompany herself.

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/listen/accomp.mp3

d

I like that! And however carefully as you listen, you
can't hear the click track leaking into the headphones,
which is so often a give-away.


Ha! Fooled you. This is a piece of Melodyne magic. I copied the
original clarinet track and shifted the notes around for the
accompaniment - so no click tracks, no Midi, no other instruments
involved.

I can't think of any other software that does what Melodyne does. If I
had taken some time over it I could have changed note lengths to make
a true accompaniment. Maybe I'll give that a go later, when I am done
wiring up my new shed. Bloody hell I chose a cold week to take off.

d

Duh! Sax, not clarinet.

d

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:51:20 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 10:23:46 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

But all the better if she can just accompany herself.

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/listen/accomp.mp3

d

I like that! And however carefully as you listen, you
can't hear the click track leaking into the headphones,
which is so often a give-away.


Ha! Fooled you. This is a piece of Melodyne magic. I copied the
original clarinet track and shifted the notes around for the
accompaniment - so no click tracks, no Midi, no other instruments
involved.

I can't think of any other software that does what Melodyne does. If I
had taken some time over it I could have changed note lengths to make
a true accompaniment. Maybe I'll give that a go later, when I am done
wiring up my new shed. Bloody hell I chose a cold week to take off.

d

For instance, if I play a little with the first few notes of that
piece, I can make this.

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/listen/beguine.mp3

All still Keith's missus playing, you understand. I've just done a
little tuning. Autotune can't do that without the robot effect you get
on current pop music.

d