Post by tailspn March 4, 2013 (61 of 68)
|
|
seth said:
How does recording venue function into this? Do you think for some concert halls there's always an optimum stage perspective, that the 9th row always sounds better or worse than the 20th?
I just listened to the Vocalise recording; I think it's works pretty well, but wish I was just a bit farther back from the orchestra. Were the microphones placed so far ahead of Fischer (looks like 8 feet) because that's where he wanted them to be, or was Jared worried that if they were closer to him or even right behind him it wouldn't produce the desired effect when listened to in the home?
Venue means everything! The row designations I mentioned are from a listeners perspective, not the microphones. Just a few feet of fore/aft mic positions means the difference between a 9th and 20th row image. And all that changes as soon as you place an audience in the hall. It's the producer who indicates the sonic image he/she wants, and the balance engineer that selects the mics and positions to accomplish that. There is no better/worse, just what the producer desires. You buy it, or you don't.
Unlike Jared's normal recordings, which contain no post processing, just his selection of venue, artist and micing, balanced and mixed in analog at the session and archived and edited in DSD, the Vocalise required post processing to make it sound not like the acoustically dead small room it was recorded in. That you like it is a testimonial to Jared's skill. The mics were placed to give a bit of space from the front wall to establish a first reflection.
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox March 5, 2013 (62 of 68)
|
|
tailspn said:
Venue means everything! The row designations I mentioned are from a listeners perspective, not the microphones. Just a few feet of fore/aft mic positions means the difference between a 9th and 20th row image. And all that changes as soon as you place an audience in the hall. It's the producer who indicates the sonic image he/she wants, and the balance engineer that selects the mics and positions to accomplish that. There is no better/worse, just what the producer desires. You buy it, or you don't.
Unlike Jared's normal recordings, which contain no post processing, just his selection of venue, artist and micing, balanced and mixed in analog at the session and archived and edited in DSD, the Vocalise required post processing to make it sound not like the acoustically dead small room it was recorded in. That you like it is a testimonial to Jared's skill. The mics were placed to give a bit of space from the front wall to establish a first reflection.
Fascinating, thanks for the insight.
I wonder how many people have attended orchestral rehearsals in 'empty' concert halls followed a day or two later by the (same) live concert in a packed hall? Quite instructive.
Most recordings have been made in the former acoustic. The trend to live performance recording is changing the fundamental sound of discs. Presumably, it is the latter 'venue' that most people seek to match at home; my preference is for the 'live recording' sound when genuine. The 'empty' acoustic of the concert hall or recording studio always makes itself evident in play-back, which can be unsettling whatever tricks are used to modify it.
It's what we are used to that feels most comfortable.
|
|
|
Post by dobyblue March 5, 2013 (63 of 68)
|
|
You could add Sting's SACD's to that list I believe, and The Police compilation. Walking on the Moon has lots of rear activity.
I'm definitely in GROUP 3 for studio recordings.
Tubular Bells would be another good one for the list, Quad 4.0
Peter Gabriel's Up has lots of surround activity.
I doubt Trent will release "The Fragile" on SACD, most likely it will arrive on Blu-ray, but I have no doubt it will be an aggressive 5.1 mix like TDS although it's being done by Alan Moulder whereas TDS was TR and James Brown.
Billy Joel - The Stranger, terrific surround presence.
|
|
|
Post by seth March 5, 2013 (64 of 68)
|
|
tailspn said:
Venue means everything! The row designations I mentioned are from a listeners perspective, not the microphones. Just a few feet of fore/aft mic positions means the difference between a 9th and 20th row image. And all that changes as soon as you place an audience in the hall. It's the producer who indicates the sonic image he/she wants, and the balance engineer that selects the mics and positions to accomplish that. There is no better/worse, just what the producer desires. You buy it, or you don't.
Unlike Jared's normal recordings, which contain no post processing, just his selection of venue, artist and micing, balanced and mixed in analog at the session and archived and edited in DSD, the Vocalise required post processing to make it sound not like the acoustically dead small room it was recorded in. That you like it is a testimonial to Jared's skill. The mics were placed to give a bit of space from the front wall to establish a first reflection.
Thanks for the insight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
dobyblue said:
You could add Sting's SACD's to that list I believe, and The Police compilation. Walking on the Moon has lots of rear activity.
I'm definitely in GROUP 3 for studio recordings.
Tubular Bells would be another good one for the list, Quad 4.0
Peter Gabriel's Up has lots of surround activity.
I doubt Trent will release "The Fragile" on SACD, most likely it will arrive on Blu-ray, but I have no doubt it will be an aggressive 5.1 mix like TDS although it's being done by Alan Moulder whereas TDS was TR and James Brown.
Billy Joel - The Stranger, terrific surround presence.
It is undoubtedly more common with pop music made in a studio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A new disc with quite active rears is the Oslo Quartet playing Schubert and Grieg on 2L. Great sound all round, as per usual from this source.
|
|
|
Post by yakman March 14, 2013 (67 of 68)
|
|
tailspn said:
....
To achieve that end, and meet a budgetary restriction, Channel Classics recorded the Vocalise session in a rehearsal hall at the Italian Institute. If you were to ask Jared today about it, he'd say "never again"! You can see a picture of that session on p.12 of the booklet.
...
Thanks for sharing. This explains why the Vocalise sounds much more conductor perspective than the Symphony on the same disc. I had the question since the first time I heard it.
|
|
|
Post by yakman March 14, 2013 (68 of 68)
|
|
Kal Rubinson said:
....
Nonetheless, I think that most serious classical listeners relate realism and accuracy to their accumulated real-world experiences. My few times hearing performances from the stage perspective (stage seats at recitals or at orchestra rehearsals) were exciting but unnatural. Perhaps with greater exposure to them, that might change for me but it is unlikely.
My few times hearing from the stage perspective also tells me the same.
The sections sound quite discrete, but the reverb not well blended into the direct path.
I have tried on stage, different seats in some of the halls during rehearsals or concerts.
For large orchestra work, front row of balcony is my first choice. Dependent on hall, it could be lower or upper balcony. The later one usually among the cheaper seats.
The worst is the front row off-center. A friend of mine calls this "reading a book 1cm from your eyes". The cost of these seats usually much higher than the upper balcony.
Many conductors, if not most, would check the sound from middle of the hall, while he will ask his assistant to conduct or let the orchestra run on its own. Many of musicians/audio crew also prefer the back hall or balcony seats.
For chamber, front row might be better, but again depend on the hall.
I'm looking forward to more exposure to conductor perspective too.
|
|
