"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?

Because you've grown to like its flaws. In exactly the same way as some
will turn up the bass (or treble) on an otherwise well balanced system. Or
watch over saturated TV pictures.


I've never had anybody prefer the sound of my digital system to my analogue
system and they can't all have grown to love it's flaws! (very few have
turntables afterall).

D

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

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


No. Once you add a spot you have entered the realm of
multi-mic technique, in trying to compensate for the
problems in producing a satisfactory recording from the
ensemble's own acoustic balance.

It puts the whole thing into a totally new perspective
and it is a very short step to adding a second, third and fourth
spot each to compensate for the one before. It's a slippery
slope to section mics and then individual mics.

Depending upon the project, that may or may not be a good
thing:-)

Iain

"David Kennedy" wrote in message
o.uk...
Iain Churches wrote:
"David 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.

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.

That trend had started much earlier in the 50s and 60s in fact, with
multimic
recording straight stereo.

After all, what's the point in having a 48 channel board if you can't max
it out?

I have worked at live gigs and given and taken feeds to/from FOH
mixers who seem to be unable to resist the temptation to use 20 mics
too many. There are however, some applications where multi-mic
is a must. Horses for courses.

Iain

On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 11:30:53 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 10:39:02 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

Yer, 'tis - a nalto. This one in fact:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Selmer.jpg

Swim wanted to max out the sax thing for once and for all and went for
this
rather pricey but nice Selmer. Cab't fault the tone, it sounds beautiful
and
Moira says it plays like a dream - big step up from the worthy but
somewhat
agricultural eBayArbiter she started out on.


Someone's been busy with the Brasso. Must be an evening's work getting
that to shine. But yes, it is easy to hear the quality in the tone.

Neither Brasso nor Duraglit (used in vast amounts by brass
and silver bands) is required on modern lacquered saxophones,
just an occasional flick with a duster to remove dust and
finger prints. Modern lacquers are also more resistant to
scratches and rubbing wear to the finish seen on so many
vintages saxes, and known as affectionately as "jazz"

Just as audiophiles discuss the differences in connecting cables,
reed players discuss the differences in the sounds of the various
finishes available for saxophones - just one of the many variables
that can give each player his/her individual tone. However,
unlike perhaps the cable debate the differences are clearly audible.
For example my black lacquered Custom Z tenor has a darker
sound than the gold lacquer version which in itself is slightly less
bright than the bare brass version.

http://www.mosabackabigband.com/Pics...stomZBlack.gif

Copper is the choice for of many classical players who, like
Keith's good lady, also tend to go for French made saxophones.

http://www.mosabackabigband.com/Pics/CopperAlto.jpg

Iain



It's quite difficult to see how the exterior finish could affect the
sound which is produced not by the metal, but by the air column. Of
course the metal interacts strongly, but all the same... Could there
be a little of the idea that the appearance affects the player's mood,
which in turn affects the style and performance here?

Do you have any clips that illustrate the tone difference, perhaps?

d

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

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.


:-)

Presumably each of your electric/electronic instruments, guitars,
keyboard, etc has an amp? So it would be quite within the
realms of possibility to create a pleasing acoustic balance without
extra mics. After all, you are probably not looking for the
punch of a big band.

You need to pay careful attention to the physical
layout of the ensemble, and sit with the producer
and the conductor a few rows back to listen before
making any changes. The French horn is a difficult
instrument to play, and amateur performers are often
understandably over-cautious. If he/she can play at
the proper marked dynamic, there should be no
difficulty in being heard. Or bring him/her closer to
the front to sit with the woodwinds.

That's what layout is all about:-)

Iain

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Multi mic recording of a classical orchestra has never been common or
popular. Although some control freaks have tried it.

All Decca Phase Four classical recordings were multi
mic (many more mics than the standard five) Likewise
EMI Studio Two, and a many classical recordings
in the UK by Pye and CBS.

Going back years while they were still playing with stereo.

This adds up to a huge number of recordings and shows,

Shows?

Dave that they were both common and popular, and
probably still are.

Some can be interesting. But not my choice.

--
*Generally speaking, you aren't learning much if your lips are moving.*

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

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
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.



Yer, 'tis - a nalto. This one in fact:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Selmer.jpg

Swim wanted to max out the sax thing for once and for all and went for
this rather pricey but nice Selmer. Cab't fault the tone, it sounds
beautiful and Moira says it plays like a dream - big step up from the
worthy but somewhat agricultural eBayArbiter she started out on.

Morning Keith

I am glad that you also just 'appened to turn the strap
in the pic to show the Paris logo:-)

All Selmers are not born equal.


Hi Iain, the logo on the strap was purely accidental I promise you!

You are right that Selmers vary in what they offer at a wide range of price
breaks - Moira went for a 'Reference 54' (I think it is) at the low end of
the professional range which can go up to many thousands of pounds.

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 10:39:02 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

Yer, 'tis - a nalto. This one in fact:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Selmer.jpg

Swim wanted to max out the sax thing for once and for all and went for
this
rather pricey but nice Selmer. Cab't fault the tone, it sounds beautiful
and
Moira says it plays like a dream - big step up from the worthy but
somewhat
agricultural eBayArbiter she started out on.


Someone's been busy with the Brasso. Must be an evening's work getting
that to shine. But yes, it is easy to hear the quality in the tone.

Neither Brasso nor Duraglit (used in vast amounts by brass
and silver bands) is required on modern lacquered saxophones,
just an occasional flick with a duster to remove dust and
finger prints. Modern lacquers are also more resistant to
scratches and rubbing wear to the finish seen on so many
vintages saxes, and known as affectionately as "jazz"

Just as audiophiles discuss the differences in connecting cables,
reed players discuss the differences in the sounds of the various
finishes available for saxophones - just one of the many variables
that can give each player his/her individual tone. However,
unlike perhaps the cable debate the differences are clearly audible.
For example my black lacquered Custom Z tenor has a darker
sound than the gold lacquer version which in itself is slightly less
bright than the bare brass version.

http://www.mosabackabigband.com/Pics...stomZBlack.gif

Copper is the choice for of many classical players who, like
Keith's good lady, also tend to go for French made saxophones.

http://www.mosabackabigband.com/Pics/CopperAlto.jpg




Lovely pix, lovely saxes.

I love the different finishes and can well imaging they would make a player
'pull his socks up' when using them, but I'm tending to agree with Don on
the appearance and finish affecting the sound thing. It would be most
interesting to hear a conparison if such a thing was available.

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:


It's quite difficult to see how the exterior finish could affect the
sound which is produced not by the metal, but by the air column. Of
course the metal interacts strongly, but all the same...

Well, I'd expect the amplitudes of the displacements of the vibrations of
the metalwork to be much smaller than those of the air in the column.
However the stiffness is also very different. And the shape, etc, of the
instrument presumably determine how effectively it acts as an 'antenna' to
couple the vibrations into the surroundings.

For a thin tube it would not surprise me if a surface coating affected the
mechanical impedance, velocity, damping, etc.

But I have no idea if any of that would have any audible significance.
Presumably someone sometime *has* measured this? I recall that one of my
ex-colleagues (who used the anechoic chamber before myself) used to do
measurements on how the constructions affected the sounds, etc. IIRC he did
some work for Salvi (is that spelt correctly?) harps years ago.

Could there be a little of the idea that the appearance affects the
player's mood, which in turn affects the style and performance here?

A coating may also affect how the instrument feels to the touch as well?

Do you have any clips that illustrate the tone difference, perhaps?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page 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

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

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.

Speaking as an experienced practitioner, one or two mics are almost no step
at all.

After that they are just incremental.

You have to add a ton of increments to get to the next step you describe,
which is superceding the ability or need for the orchestra and
director to balance themselves.

Once you have that spot mic, you are no longer relying on the orchestra
and
director to balance themselves.

You are still depending on the orchestra to balance themselves. The only
thing you did is give that one vocalist the vocal volume that he never
obtained by natural means. Doing this may be unexpectedly complex. You may
end up providing both the singer and the conductor with monitor speakers
that need volume level and spectral management. Then, no performer has a
clue about what's happening in the room.

You have some artistic control over what is heard.

There is a *huge* difference between helping out a lone vocalist or a few of
them, and superceding the ability or need for the orchestra and
director to balance themselves.

Because of bleed which is not completely managable until you put each
musican or at least each section into its own sound-proof booth, you are
strongly dependent on the orchestra to balance themselves even if you use
multiple close microphones.

Acoustic drums are just about the only instrument whose acoustic bleed is
managed while recording or for live sound. They are easily 90% or more of
the actual practice. That doesn't mean that other instruments (e.g.
trumpets) don't bleed heavily.

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

True in theory but not true if you're actually buying the mics, cables, and
what it takes to make them work, and then emplacing the mics and speakers,
stringing the cables, hooking everything up, configuring the mixer, mics and
the speakers, and actually operating the console. Been there, done that for
mid-sized audiences for over a decade, over 500 live performances.

Close micing and multitracking a full orchestra is an immense job. It is IMO
arguable that one reason that true sucess with the approach is so rare, is
that few actually do *everything* required to do the job *right*.
Furthermore, I'm not sure that we even have an accurate road map for doing
it right. Frankly what we do is throw in a few mics and a few speakers and
hook them up and punt.