Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 75

Thread: Do audiophiles get enough exposure to 'live sound'?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    39

    Default Do audiophiles get enough exposure to 'live sound'?

    I recently applied Bass Boost to 3dB and noticed that the Bass capabilities of ...
    {Moderator's comment: This thread has taken a different direction to the original post by kraiker. You can read the original thread about boosting bass here.}

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South of England, UK
    Posts
    4,187

    Default Trying too hard to capture the full live sound at home ....

    Quote Originally Posted by kraiker View Post
    The CS300X is 15wpc and not 12. You are scarring me now with the bad idea thing, can you please explain ?
    OK, let's step back and look at this logically.

    Have a look at the picture (attached) of a full orchestra. Imagine for a moment that the conductor allowed us to walk onto the platform and set-up a pair of mini-monitors (like the P3ESR) on stands and connect them to an audio system and then to play back a recording of the performance that we'd just made - and (hopefully) impress the musicians with the fidelity of our audio system. What would be the outcome?

    Logically, we can expect this:

    ... that the reproduced sound would be tiny compared to the live sound. So tiny that the musicians seated around our speakers would be straining (and chortling) at our efforts to reproduce their huge dynamic range. Our sound would seem very small indeed compared to the live sound. There are several reasons for this -

    • The amplifier has far too little power (12-15W) when we would need perhaps 1000W (guess)
    • The speakers are inefficient (as all speakers are)
    • There are only two speakers trying to reproduce the entire orchestra of 60+ sound sources
    • The orchestra produces sound across the whole stage (10m x 5m?) - the speakers produce sound from two tiny boxes

    So how can the listener be fooled into believing that, sitting at home, his tiny speakers and amplifier in a small room can faithfully recreate the hall sound when self-evidently it's impossible to generate enough acoustic power in the listening room? Obviously there is some mental trickery going on here - willing self-delusion - in the same way that we look at a widescreen TV and allow ourselves to believe that we are actually in the jungle or up a mountain.

    What brings the sonic illusion to an abrupt end? The reality check is that this illusion of an orchestra in all its glory in front of us only works at a low replay level within the capability of the speakers. Look at the surface area of all the instruments of the orchestra (it must be many m2) and then consider that the P3 woofer has a surface area of about 1/3 of a sheet of A4 paper and you'll appreciate that it must be working really hard, moving backwards and forwards pumping air, to even vaguely create the illusion of the big, full sound of the real instruments.

    Adequate bass realism at a moderate loudness is allowed for in the design of the woofer. But what isn't is intentionally electrically boosting the contribution from the bass-heavy instruments (turning-up the bass control on the amp) so that the small drive unit is being asked to work excessively hard. That will run the risk of bottoming the voice coil deep in the magnet (destroys the woofer) and/or over cooking the voice coil and/or much increased low frequency distortion and muddy mid band.

    Hope that helps.
    Alan A. Shaw
    Designer, owner
    Harbeth Audio UK

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    508

    Default Boosting LF in the room

    Thank you for the explanation.

    Now, I understand why some users' speakers always suffer from burnt voice coil every few years.

    In view of the danger of bass boost, what's your view on room correction softwares? Could there be hidden dangers of bass boost when we use such system? My understanding of electronic EQ is to use it to attenuate and never to boost any frequency. But a DSP may not work similarly.

    ST

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South of England, UK
    Posts
    4,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STHLS5 View Post
    In view of the danger of bass boast, what's your view on room correction softwares? Could there be hidden dangers of bass boost when we use such system? My understanding of electronic EQ is to use it to attenuate and never to boost any frequency. But a DSP may not work similarly.ST
    Interesting question.

    The point that I hope is now firmly accepted is that it is completely and utterly impossible for two 110, 200 or 300mm bass units to generate the sound of an orchestra at home. The only reason that home hi-fi works as well as it does is because it deceives the listener much of the time with an illusion that is just convincing enough that we're carried along with the experience. It's the same as being in the cinema: for the first few minutes we notice how soft and grainy the picture is, how colored the sound, how uncomfortable the seat .... but once our mind is absorbed with the whole experience, we lose the ability to be critical. We accept unquestioningly the nasty reality of the soft-focus grainy picture with its tiny optical dynamic range as faithful to life and are carried along with it. Also, how many audiophiles actually experience live musical sound to have a valid means of comparion? And as we observed with one recent A/B musical comparison here, only 10% of contributors recognised the original sound. 90% preferred a compressed 'soft-grained' defocussed, analogue version of digital reality.

    As far as I know, no attempt is made (or should be made) by a room correction system to boost weak notes in the bass. The fact that there are some or a series of musical notes which are a little or a lot less audible than adjacent notes when the loudspeaker is producing them as soundwaves of equal pressure indicates one thing: some sort of cancellation is occurring in the room. If you play the musical scale and certain notes are completely inaudible, this has something to do with the dimensions of the room, not the speakers. And the key point is this: if the notes are inadible because of the cancellation of soundwaves opposing each other, no matter how much sound power the speakers generate there will always be cancellation. So if bass notes are missing due to cancellation, EQ cannot ever fill them in, but it can tame those frequencies where there is an excess of bass by applying less power. That's my understanding.
    Alan A. Shaw
    Designer, owner
    Harbeth Audio UK

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Piraeus, Greece
    Posts
    46

    Default The "break-in" period is nothing more than .....

    Quote Originally Posted by A.S. View Post
    Interesting question.

    ... The only reason that home hi-fi works as well as it does is because it deceives the listener much of the time with an illusion that is just convincing enough that we're carried along with the experience. It's the same as being in the cinema: for the first few minutes we notice how soft and grainy the picture is, how colored the sound, how uncomfortable the seat .... but once our mind is absorbed with the whole experience, we lose the ability to be critical. We accept unquestioningly the nasty reality of the soft-focus grainy picture with its tiny optical dynamic range as faithful to life and are carried along with it....
    Excellent!
    This is the "break-in period" for every hi-fi component, that so many audiophiles believe...

    Brain adjustment...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South of England, UK
    Posts
    4,187

    Default Burn-in = brain adjustment time

    Quote Originally Posted by Takis View Post
    Excellent! This is the "break-in period" for every hi-fi component, that so many audiophiles believe...

    Brain adjustment...
    100% correct. There is no real physical or electrical 'burn-in' (aside from a few hours of softening of the speakers suspension). What's called 'burn-in' in audiophile circles is entirely a mental issue of becoming acclimatised to a new experience. Of that I am absolutely and utterly certain.

    Failure to accept this as fact demonstrates a basic lack of awareness of how the human mind works in all areas of observational experience, from engineering to love.
    Alan A. Shaw
    Designer, owner
    Harbeth Audio UK

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    508

    Default Random thoughts - how familiar are we with 'real sound' ?

    Quote Originally Posted by A.S. View Post
    .... but once our mind is absorbed with the whole experience, we lose the ability to be critical. ...
    Yes, you said it well. Once we are absorbed with the music we are not only non-critical but also shouldn't be critical. It defeats the purpose of listening to music.*

    *Also, how many audiophiles actually experience live musical sound to have a valid means of comparion?*
    That's what I have been telling. We (some of us like myself) just do not know what a live unamplified sounds like in a proper venue. We do not know how a real high quality violin, piano or a woodwind is suppose to sound. If I am a musician and my sound reaches 90% of the listeners would I want change my music to be technically correct so that I meet the standard which is only recognizable by 10% of the listeners?

    Some used to say the guitar sound in my room is like coming from nylon strings. i know they are referring to reverbs so I covered about 30 percent of the absorber in my room with aluminum sheets. The results was a "real" guitar sound even though it is colored with reverbs and I do not like the vocals due to the high reverbs but to others it was perfect.

    Honestly, despite being pointed out to me about the *reduced reverbs in the clips I still cannot hear the difference. Is it because the music played in a venue that I have no prior reference. *Can a westerner tell if a veenai or a sarod or a gamelan's sound is correct or you could readily hear the trailing reverbs? But we live in a world where Louis Armstrong's voice is gift from god despite normal humans never sound like that.

    Just my random thoughts .

    ST

    p.s. I have no idea why the asterisk appears in my posts. Must be something to do with my IPad.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South of England, UK
    Posts
    4,187

    Default Topic continues here from another thread ....

    I suggest that we move this topic to another separate thread as we are some way from the original theme of this one.

    I've duplicated the last few posts so we can pick-up again with ease.

    Discussion continues right here in this thread. You are in the right place to comment!
    Alan A. Shaw
    Designer, owner
    Harbeth Audio UK

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Malaysia/Singapore
    Posts
    435

    Default No run-in with Harbeth

    I agree run-in = brain adjustment.

    The more incorrect or distorted sound the more time need to "run-in".

    My audiophile friends, non-Harbeth owners, always tell me how importance warm up or run-in and practise 24/7 switch on hifi in order to keep the sound in optimal quality.

    For me, my Harbeth setup can sound natural and beautiful right after I switched them on and play music. The superb natural of RADIAL cone do not need any brain adjustment at all.
    "Bath in Music"

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South of England, UK
    Posts
    4,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STHLS5 View Post
    Yes, you said it well. Once we are absorbed with the music we are not only non-critical but also shouldn't be critical. It defeats the purpose of listening to music ... We (some of us like myself) just do not know what a live unamplified sounds like in a proper venue. We do not know how a real high quality violin, piano or a woodwind is suppose to sound.

    Some used to say the guitar sound in my room is like coming from nylon strings. i know they are referring to reverbs so I covered about 30 percent of the absorber in my room with aluminum sheets. The results was a "real" guitar sound even though it is colored with reverbs and I do not like the vocals due to the high reverbs but to others it was perfect. ... Is it because the music played in a venue that I have no prior reference. Can a westerner tell if a veenai or a sarod or a gamelan's sound is correct or you could readily hear the trailing reverbs? ...
    Very thoughtful. Where to start commenting?

    First, about the guitar sound: we the humble listener have no means of knowing how bright the original guitar sound was in real life, since there are many factors to consider about the guitar body, the strings, the positioning and selection of the microphone (very critical for recording strunged instruments), the room acoustic, the amount of equalisation that the producer/record company executive/marketing department/artist/artist's manager desired. Far too many unknowns.

    We can say is that is is likely that for classical music featuring the acoustic, unamplified guitar with/without an orchestra that the guitar will indeed have nylon strings and should sound like a guitar with nylon strings i.e. a rather soft, warm, lacking-in-obvious-high frequencies* sound. So if your ill-informed friends were listening to classical guitar sound and expecting it to sound like bright, crisp pop guitar - more fool them. They sent you on a useless chase. If they were listening to a pop guitar recording, their oppinion was worthless because, for the reasons I listed above, neither you, nor they, nor I have the slightest knowledge of the tricks and techniques used to make the recording.

    A case of the ignorant leading the willing?

    I'll look out a guitar recording I made last year in a moderately dry acoustic. You'll be very surprised just how un-hifi like it is. Very very dull sound. But that's exactly how this lovely old guitar sounded in real life. With some EQ I can make it sound as bright and zingy as you want. In fact, although my original idea was to release the recording of guitar + singer as an 'audiophile recording' I didn't think that it had the "hi-fi" sound that audiophiles would recoginise as "hi-fi". So I abandoned the idea. Your friends would consider it worthless for sure!
    Alan A. Shaw
    Designer, owner
    Harbeth Audio UK

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    508

    Default Designer's Nightmare

    Quote Originally Posted by A.S. View Post
    ?.......
    I'll look out a guitar recording I made last year in a moderately dry acoustic. You'll be very surprised just how un-hifi like it is. Very very dull sound. But that's exactly how this lovely old guitar sounded in real life. With some EQ I can make it sound as bright and zingy as you want. In fact, although my original idea was to release the recording of guitar + singer as an 'audiophile recording' I didn't think that it had the "hi-fi" sound that audiophiles would recoginise as "hi-fi". So I abandoned the idea. Your friends would consider it worthless for sure!
    I remember the recording. I watched the live streaming and yes it sounded typically unamplified, i.e., flat. I always felt the same thing about some unamplified recording that I have.

    The other thing I like to comment is the vocal recordings. Have you listened to your children singing several feet away and singing softly to your ears? I notice there is a difference in the sound texture. They are not the same. Similarly, a microphone placed few inches away from the mouth may pick a different sound characteristic of what we hear several feet away.

    Thanks to our adaptability we are able to recognize the voice just like recognizing your loved ones voice over the telephone but as a designer this would be a nightmare to exactly determine the exact voice at the exact distance.

    So many variables and unknowns and so many things to learn. I hope we could hear the difference in the A/B clips soon. Either I am not an acute listener or my brain just learned to filter out the excess reverbs.

    ST

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South of England, UK
    Posts
    4,187

    Default The further you are from the source ...

    Quote Originally Posted by STHLS5 View Post
    ... Have you listened to your children singing several feet away and singing softly to your ears? I notice there is a difference in the sound texture. They are not the same. Similarly, a microphone placed few inches away from the mouth may pick a different sound characteristic of what we hear several feet away....
    It shouldn't be a surprise that especially in doors, the further the source is from you, the greater the difference in 'character' between the close-up sound and the more distant sound.

    Let's take the human brain out of the equation and rig up a dumb microphone, that captures whatever presses on it's diaphragm and without a brain, just passes that along to the recording device as a voltage. Assume that we are using the perfect microphone to capture those voices, and that microphone of itself did not change character* according to how close it was to the source. So we put the mic on a stand** and ask the children to speak or sing at (say) 20cms, 50cms, 1m, 3m, 10m from the mic. What would we hear from the dumb microphone? (Actually I think I did this very thing when the children were young .... wonder where the DAT tape is).

    * Some microphones change sonic balance dramatically depending upon how close the voice is. The warm, velvet tones we remember Bing Crosby for were much to do with the reports that he would only use one type of mic and that he even carried his own mic to recordings. "The ribbon’s natural sound can also be made to sound warm, big, and syrupy (Bing Crosby-like) when placed within two or three feet of the talent (generally, you can’t close-talk a ribbon without having a greatly exaggerated bass characteristic)" - more here.

    Microhones have their own character. The rich, chesty, full bodied, relaxed he-man 'all-American sound' has much to do with ribbon microphones used close-up. Example here from 1942. Why wouldn't you set that as your normal voice reference sound even though it was a (pleasing) coloration of the real sound?

    ** Funnily enough, at the X-Factor studio last week (another M40, M30 install) they told me how after a beauty parade of all the well known monitor brands how they came to select Harbeth. Their test was to place a well-respected Neumann U87 microphone down on the studio stage (where we see the presenter) and cable it back to the control room where they could listen to various voices. The only speakers that captured the naturalness of the live voice was the M40.1. I asked if the engineering staff would be willing to make a video of behind the scenes including repeating that test and they have gone off to seek permission and cost making a mini-documentary for us here.
    Alan A. Shaw
    Designer, owner
    Harbeth Audio UK

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South of England, UK
    Posts
    4,187

    Default Never, ever underestimate the importance of microphone choice ...

    Examples of Bing Crosby and how the selection of the microphone can give you a specific sound: the warmth we associate with his singing voice. And how many of use would be likely to meet and hear him in the street, unamplified. So our preception is inevitably that of the recorded voice.

    Bing Crosby Audio Vault

    Have a listen to the first clip 'Capital radio interview - UK'. It opens with the familiar warm recorded voice we know. Then follows a studio interview.

    When he visted the UK in 1975 he gave a radio interview from which you can hear his real speaking voice at a typical studio voice to mic distance of about 30cms. The interview microphone at that time would almost certainly have been an AKG D202, a cardiod mic optimised to sound and measure flat when used close to the source.

    The professional sound engineer will carefully select a microphone for the effect he wants. We, the listener, are not privy to that selection criteria so when judging a recording we are really unable to be sure about how true to life it really is.
    Alan A. Shaw
    Designer, owner
    Harbeth Audio UK

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South of England, UK
    Posts
    4,187

    Default Deconstructing the recorded sound we hear. 1 - contact microphones

    Before your smart friends start to nit-pick your hifi system, you should be armed with some basic skills for putting them in their place. The most important skill to develop (in my opinion) is to be able to mentally deconstruct a recording. What does that mean? Since neither you nor they were actually present at any recording, and we can't really trust any publicity pictures supplied with the disc, we are going to have to listen forensically to the recording and decode what we hear. We are going to have to deduce, solely based on our knowledge of recorded sound, how big the recording environment was, where the performers and microphones were positioned in that space and even what type of microphones were used. We've touched on this so many times, even with recorded examples (here and here) but not reached the core. So let's develop some skill to do just that.

    We don't need to know anything at all about music. We don't need to be able to read music (I can't) or play an instrument (I can't). We don't need to know anything about eastern or western musical scales, instruments or tonality. But we must know something about the art of recording, about microphones and recording halls and how they are used to artistic effect.

    Microphones fall into two main categories: acoustic microphones set away from the instrument and contact microphones which are firmly glued or attached to the instrument. At the very least we must be able to recognise the sonic signature of these very different ways of capturing the sound we experience on the recording. The sound is totally different, and we can identify them by careful listening.

    The contact or very close microphone: an intimate sound

    Here is an excellent DIY video showing how a $1 crystal microphone (no moving parts) can be attached to a sound generator (guitar etc.), amplified, fed though some pleasing tone adjustment ... and bingo: a great rock guitar sound. You can even make the crystal microphone yourself with some simple chemicals! Remember: it has no moving parts. Cooking instructions here.

    Point to note is that a contact mic picks up nothing of the acoustic space around the instrument. The sound is therefore acoustically 'dry' with much higher intensity than a conventional mic set at a distance. Hence, using the contact microphone is the normal way of recording or playing pop/rock instruments where an intimate sound is required and crucially, performers can be completely isolated from other performers who have their own contact microphones*. This is the exact opposite situation with the recording of acoustic music (orchestra etc.) where performers are not contact-mic'd, and where the sound waves from instruments are allowed to float in the acoustic, absorbing the ambient character of the hall, before being collected by distant microphones. That's the general idea. More on that in another post.

    * I must stress this point fully. The entire pop/recording industry is underpinned by the rule 'one instrument, one microphone, one channel on the mixing console'. That's because of the need to do re-records (re-takes) of individual performer's contributions. That implies that the recording engineer can isolate and get-at one performer's contribution and replace or edit it without disturbing any of the other performer's acceptable contributions. That absolutely mandates that each performer is recorded in isolation and that means, their microphones must be very, very close to their sound source (instrument) or actually attached to it. So, the sound captured by these close-microphones will drown out any sound leaking from other performers. This type of dry sound is not what we hear in the concert hall.
    Alan A. Shaw
    Designer, owner
    Harbeth Audio UK

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    115

    Default Stunning close-up

    The amount of variables which are part of how a recording sounds the way it does is too much to put in words. It's a good thing that a Harbeth is very true to the original source, a great reference speaker.

    It's stunning how natural they sound even if you're sitting very closely to them, you don't hear the seperate drive units. With all other brands of speaker, when listening in the nearfield, I hear a tweeter and a (foggy sounding) mid/bass unit.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    147

    Default Some like a more 'open sound'

    Interesting information about the contact microphone, yet many guitar players who record prefer that their guitar be hooked to an amp and then have the amp mic'd so that the more open sound goes to the mixing board.

    Many artists like to have their guitar mic'd on stage, the same way so that the sound engineer can blend the sound with the rest of the music. It is only after getting involved in home recording (still not ready for prime time) and doing much research that I learned much about the various recording techniques.
    Many recordings are done one insturment at a time, (the rest of the band does not even have to be there, thus the isolation, even with a mic'd amp, you can have the onenene ratio as noted). Also probably why many artists sound different while live vs "memorex"

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    508

    Default Some speakers inherently colored

    Thank you Alan. You have explained very well how you approached the Harbeth designs and how we should judge the sound. Btw, the "here and here" is without a link.

    Some speakers are inherently coloured that it deprives listeners of appreciating the minuscule difference in the vocals. I have often heard remarks from my friends that some of the vocals in the recording that they are familiar with do not sound right to them.

    One example was when I played a CD of Ella Fitzgerald the listener couldn't identify the singer. After he confirmed that he has the same CD, I switched few other tracks and in some he could readily recognizes Fitzgerald.

    I have noticed the vocals sounded different from one track to another in my Harbeth but in the non Harbeth system it is somehow have a unique sound signature that it masks whatever difference that you may have despite one track could be a recording of her voice in her younger days. An acoustically clean room amplifies the difference more.

    ST

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South of England, UK
    Posts
    4,187

    Default Accountants hate 'air' and 'space'

    Quote Originally Posted by Macjager View Post
    ... yet many guitar players who record prefer that their guitar be hooked to an amp and then have the amp mic'd so that the more open sound goes to the mixing board....
    Two points here ...

    1. Whatever the artist may prefer about creating some acoustic space around their instrument, you can 100% bet that the record producer/sound engineer will do everything in his power to persuade the artist that is a very bad idea indeed, and a 'better' solution (that is, a better solution for the production team) would be to record very closely and then add some artificial reverb in the control room.

    Can you see why the last thing the engineer wants is a nice, spacey air around the instrument? Because if the performer is playing 'to the room' either with a mic some way back from the instrument and/or playing through contact mic and PA amp speaker, the sound is splashing all around the studio and will be picked up by other musicians microphones. If he plays a wrong note, coughs or sneezes, becomes confused and loses his way or gets out of sync with the others, there may be insufficient acoustic isolation to be able to do any remedial work (i.e. edit, re-record) on his peformance alone because the original mistake will have already polluted the other performers recordings via their microphones. See how that could lead to a very, very expensive re-recording session with the entire band? And that's why multitrack recording was a godsend to accountants when it was developed in the 60s. They embraced it with even more gusto than recording artists. Because it saved money by minimising re-recording costs. Everyone else could go home except for the artist who needed to re-record his part and the sound engineer; he just played along with the original recording on headphones. Cheap and effective. But the down side is no air in the recording. So if you see recording artists wearing headphones during a recording, you can be fairly sure that it is a multitrack (isolated, airless) recording and they are just being fed whatever instrument they need to keep time with. They will not hear the entire band because the 'entire band' doesn't exist until it is synthesised out of the individual, airless, performances during the mix.

    2. Relating to the above .... just because the instrument is playing over a PA speaker doesn't change the abservation about the missing air from close miking or contact miking. The mic will be jammed right up next to the speaker and intentionally not colecting the ambient acoustic for the reasona above in 1.

    Listen to what you can do when you have all the performers/sound on different, isolated tracks here. Notice how on the second (clap) example the reverb aroud it is entirely synthetic. Also notice at the end the extreme convenience of being able to re-record only the vocals without disturbing any of the other sounds.

    Here's something you don't hear these days: the band members all recording together in the same acoustic space at the same time and confident in their synergy (and musical ability) that they don't need to be isolated frome each other. Lovely open sound from the Beatles, 1965. Also here.

    Interesting comparison with the previous links showing a modern mixing desk with hundreds of channels. Here in 1964, the Beatles and a view of the control room with just a few microphone channels. Implication: the four performers recorded in the same room, playing together in the same take. So, plenty of common acoustic is collected by the open microphones. Those days are long, long gone. Only the very best musicians who are completely in-tune with each other dare to record this way. Another wonderful example here. And if you listen closely to this example of Paul and John singing in harmony you can hear the guitar track which is fed to their headphones actually being picked-up by their vocal microphone(s). Imagine how small a sound that is and the true difficulties of recording many perfomers in the one space with isolation between them. (I wonder if they actually sang simultaneously because there is L-R pan and the picture, perhaps unrelated, shows a mono microphone. Did one recorded the vocal track first, the tape was rewound and the other sing along to it in harmony?).

    >
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Alan A. Shaw
    Designer, owner
    Harbeth Audio UK

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Harrow, UK
    Posts
    477

    Default Because...

    Quote Originally Posted by A.S. View Post
    ...I wonder if they actually sang simultaneously because there is L-R pan and the picture, perhaps unrelated, shows a mono microphone. Did one recorded the vocal track first, the tape was rewound and the other sing along to it in harmony?
    Both statements are possibly true because there are at least four parts here; it seems reasonable that they sang together onto two or three mono tracks to create the ensemble and thus create the stereophony.

    Abbey Road (the album) was created using 8 track recorders although Abbey Road (the studio) was a comparatively late adopter of this technology.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South of England, UK
    Posts
    4,187

    Default

    I have a really perfect example of the deconstruction of a pop song: Queen's guitarist, Brian May, talks us through Bohemian Rhapsody.

    There are several very important points to note about this famous 70's recording.

    1. The use of multi-track recording. Individual sounds are recorded to individual channels and then mixed-down in the desired relative loudness by the producer after all sounds have been recorded. That's called post-production, and will take far longer than the recording itself. This one track alone could have taken weeks to mix-down due to its complexity, but none of the performers need to be present for the mix-down.

    2. It is absolutely essential that all the individual (microphone) channels are recorded dry - that is, without picking-up much of the studio acoustic or the sound of any of the other performers, just as we noted with the Beatles example. That's because at mix-down it is crucial that there is no unwanted reverberation or ambience because it cannot be sonically removed from the recording and may spoil the intended artistic effect the producer desires at mix-down. That in turn implies that the individual sound are close-miked to minimise bleed-through from other sounds. This close miking will give a high-intensity sound and little or no air about the sound.

    3. Note that at about 25 mins in, Brian introduces the idea that for some of the drums, they wanted a more airy sound, and intentionally pulled the mikes back from them. But Queen made that artistic decision at the time of recording, because it would not have been possible (even with today's technology) to remove the ambience from those tracks and dry-out the sound. Had they regretted introducing ambience to the instrument at recording time they would have had to re-record the drums as a separate exercise days or weeks after the main session. The cost and inconvenience would be dramatic - and the drummer may have been away on tour. So the general rule for pop music recording is - Always record 'dry'. Avoid capturing 'air' around the performers. Record in proper, acoustically dead studios with mikes up close.

    4) Just listen to how dry the various tracks are - devoid of any ambience. Completely the reverse of classical recording where the a sense of the hall and an ambience around performers is highly valued.

    This one video video alone encapsulates the art and reality of pop recording. Worth watching from start to finish.

    It should be obvious that the creation of a pop/rock song cannot be spontaneous and involved hundreds of hours of careful adjustment. Because the end product is synthetic the question to ask yourself is this: As I will never be able to hear that exact performance in real life, is there a frame of reference to judge sound quality against? Should pop/rock music form any basis of my critical evaluation of high fidelity recording or playback equipment? The answer to both must surely be an unequivocal no.

    You can here Bohemian Rhapsody in its final mixed-down version here (moderate quality). The CD is very nice indeed.
    Last edited by A.S.; 27-01-2012 at 11:13 PM. Reason: 'Bohemian Rhapsody' - a master class in recording 'dry'
    Alan A. Shaw
    Designer, owner
    Harbeth Audio UK

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •