5121cdd@houxm.UUCP (C.DORY) (03/31/84)
Clearly, if the ultimate goal of a recording is only the master tape (i.e., records or CDs are not to be made), microphony, equalization (or the lack thereof), etc. should not, in theory, be different between digital and analog recording. In practice, however, for wide distribution (and to retain high quality) either LPs or CDs must be made. The losses involved in pressing LPs are widely known among the recordists in the trade -- often times, they try to compensate for these losses in either the master or subsequent interstages. The real problem, then, surfaces when CDs are made from the tape used to master the record. Or, alternatively, CDs sound less than good when "non-pure" recording practices (optimized for the mass-market LP) were used. Realize that I'm not endorsing in any way, shape, or form anything other than a natural, unprocessed recording FOR ANY MEDIUM. RCA, DG, Columbia, etc. go in to a recording session with multitrack decks and a dozen or more mikes. This is sometimes an (if you can believe it) economic practice. In many situations, it is more cost effective to record the orchestra and fix the mistakes and imbalances in the mixdown rather than to pay the orchestra recording scale while waiting to get perfect "pure" mike placement and for perfect performances. Remember, the record companies are in business to make money. Other (smaller) labels, like Telarc, don't use the top-dollar World-Class orchestras. Telarc, then, is able to exerts more control over the recording session -- they're after top quality and that's how they make their money. In my experience when making recordings for whatever purpose, some of the conductors have become a little anxious when learning that I only use two mikes so that, for instance, if the oboe solo in the third movement is played out of tune, I can't "fix it in the mix". By recording in this fashion, I put a great deal more pressure on the conductor and musicians to deliver musical performances. The job of the recordist (for classical music and some jazz and folk) is to document the performance not alter it. The recordist is not part of the musical performance. Craig Dory AT&T Bell Laboratories Holmdel, NJ
5121cdd@houxm.UUCP (C.DORY) (04/18/84)
In a recent article describing a comparison of the cassette, LP disk, and CD of a DG recording of M.B., the recording setup was described. This is another case in point as to why CDs often get a bad rap. By putting the microphones over the conductor's head, the tonal balance of the orchestra will sound trebly and hard. The strings, especially, will have a (as identified) steely quality. This is due to the radiation pattern of the strings. The high harmonics tend to radiate straight up while the lower harmonics radiate more omnidirectionally. Therefore, realizing this, you can equalize the sound of the stings (and many other instruments as well) by simply changing mike placement. CDs are also criticized for lack of ambience; it is clear that with close miking techniques (either multi or simple) that there is a definate lack of reverberant information. As I have discussed before on the net, this form of "natural" equalization is often used to make up for subsequent losses in the recording chain. The problem lies, then, when master tapes made for LPs are used for CDs. As well, many recordists out of habit compensate for LPs when specifically mastering for CDs. Why don't we (on this net at least) spend more time discussing CREATIVE ways to increase our enjoyment of recorded music. Discussions of mike placement and recording techniques, error correction, speaker placement & construction, etc. have a hellava a lot more merit than personnal attacks on opinions and senseless flames. Craig Dory AT&T Bell Laboratories Holmdel, NJ