To reverb or not?
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:20:36 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
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.

That sounds like fun:-) I know of Melodyne's application in
vocal pitch correction but have never seen it used.


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,

Please do.

when I am done
wiring up my new shed.

Studio in the garden?

The neighbours might have something to say about that.
Bloody hell I chose a cold week to take off.

Don't complain. It's -10C here, 10 cms of snow fell yesterday.
But the sun is shining now from a blue sky , and I'm off to a
big band rehearsal, followed by a slap up (late) lunch.


-10 in Finland feels warm. The current zero here is just bitter.



Same here - it's perishing.

To reverb or not?
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"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.



Morning Iain!

That is all very interesting and prompts me to observe that one of the
biggest things with valve and vinyl types is that, once past the threshold
of acceptability where sounds and voices are eminently recognisable, we
don't too worry much about the nth degree of 'accuracy' or fidelity to what
is most often/almost aways an unheard original. We (well, at least I do)
assess the situation on the basis of the final product, irrespective of
production processes or playback equipment being used.

A good example I can think of is Bjork on vinyl; it's very beguiling.

To reverb or not?
 

"Keith G" wrote

That is all very interesting and prompts me to observe that one of the
biggest things with valve and vinyl types is that, once past the threshold
of acceptability where sounds and voices are eminently recognisable, we
don't too worry much about the nth degree of 'accuracy' or fidelity to
what is most often/almost aways an unheard original. We (well, at least I
do) assess the situation on the basis of the final product, irrespective
of production processes or playback equipment being used.


Fair enough. But what *positive* advantage is there to "valves'n'vinyl"?
since they are more expensive more trouble and less convenient?

David.

To reverb or not?
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 10:44:22 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman
(News)" wrote:

In article
,
David Kennedy
wrote:
I haven't done or seen any orchestral recording now for
over 15 years so am not up to date with present
methods. As of the late 80s and early 90s there was a
trend to try to see just how many mics you could use.
After all, what's the point in having a 48 channel
board if you can't max it out?

Multi mic recording of a classical orchestra has never
been common or popular. Although some control freaks
have tried it.

A full classical orchestra in a good venue is like a large pipe organ - by
design there is more than enough of its own acoustically-generated sound. No
amplification should be needed. Some mostly acoustic pipe organs use
electronics to simulate the largest pipes. This saves cost and space, and
can have excellent results.

A spot mic for a featured soloist is not uncommon. I
suppose that would qualify as multi-mic.

Calling spot micing a tiny fraction of the musicians "multi micing" seems to
confuse the issue.

I provide SR support for a small orchestra - less than 20 pieces. We have a
number of electric/elecronic instruments, guitars, keyboard, etc. We also
mic the woodwinds. strings, and the more mellow brass instruments such as a
French Horn. We don't have enough instruments to achieve a natural balance,
so the electronic assistance vastly improves the sound quality.

To reverb or not?
 

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

That is all very interesting and prompts me to observe that one of the
biggest things with valve and vinyl types is that, once past the
threshold of acceptability where sounds and voices are eminently
recognisable, we don't too worry much about the nth degree of 'accuracy'
or fidelity to what is most often/almost aways an unheard original. We
(well, at least I do) assess the situation on the basis of the final
product, irrespective of production processes or playback equipment being
used.


Fair enough. But what *positive* advantage is there to "valves'n'vinyl"?
since they are more expensive more trouble and less convenient?


It's impossible to try and persuade anone about the perceived advantages of
valves and vinyl pretty much like trying to persuade someone about they
'advantages' of tea leaves over tea bags or unsliced loaves over sliced
bread if they do not use them/it themselves.

Other than being a more satisfying music replaying experience more me, I
would be the first to admit there is no actual advantage with either valves
and/or vinyl - quite the reverse when you consider the bulk of it all!

To reverb or not?
 

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 07:18:11 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

A spot mic for a featured soloist is not uncommon. I
suppose that would qualify as multi-mic.

Calling spot micing a tiny fraction of the musicians "multi micing" seems to
confuse the issue.

Not really. Adding the spot mic is the big step. After that they are
just incremental. Once you have that spot mic, you are no longer
relying on the orchestra and director to balance themselves. You have
some artistic control over what is heard.

The ratio of none to some is much bigger than the ratio of some to a
bit more.

d

To reverb or not?
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
It's impossible to try and persuade anone about the perceived advantages
of valves and vinyl pretty much like trying to persuade someone about
they 'advantages' of tea leaves over tea bags or unsliced loaves over
sliced bread if they do not use them/it themselves.

Err, I'd guess most - or many - on here have 'tried' both valves and
vinyl. And have moved on to something better.

Tea bags and pre-sliced bread tend to be at the lower end price wise and
don't necessarily use the finest materials. But you could put the best tea
leaves into a bag if you wished and have a decent loaf sliced by a machine.

Nothing you can do to vinyl sorts its inherent faults. And there's nothing
a valve can do audio wise that a decent transistor design can't do either.

--
*You! Off my planet!

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

To reverb or not?
 

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
Calling spot micing a tiny fraction of the musicians "multi micing"
seems to confuse the issue.

Not really. Adding the spot mic is the big step. After that they are
just incremental. Once you have that spot mic, you are no longer
relying on the orchestra and director to balance themselves. You have
some artistic control over what is heard.

You already have a degree of control by the position of the main pair or
whatever.

Pretty well any classical piece that involves say solo voice will use a
spot mic for that. Always has done in general. But I'd not call that
multi-mic either. My definition is where you mic up each section of the
orchestra individually. Regardless of how many mics you use on each
section. But I'm sure others will disagree.

--
*All generalizations are false.

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

To reverb or not?
 

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:30:20 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
Calling spot micing a tiny fraction of the musicians "multi micing"
seems to confuse the issue.

Not really. Adding the spot mic is the big step. After that they are
just incremental. Once you have that spot mic, you are no longer
relying on the orchestra and director to balance themselves. You have
some artistic control over what is heard.

You already have a degree of control by the position of the main pair or
whatever.

Pretty well any classical piece that involves say solo voice will use a
spot mic for that. Always has done in general. But I'd not call that
multi-mic either. My definition is where you mic up each section of the
orchestra individually. Regardless of how many mics you use on each
section. But I'm sure others will disagree.

It is one of those "how many hairs make a beard" questions. With a
stereo pair, once they are positioned, you just pan one hard left and
the other hard right and the job is done. Once you add a spot mic, you
are in a position to start playing with pan pots and faders. That is a
whole new dimension that simply isn't there for a stereo pair. Miking
groups of instruments individually amounts to more of the same. That's
how I see it.

d

To reverb or not?
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Nothing you can do to vinyl sorts its inherent faults.

Indeed, the big question is why oh why does it sound so good?