Air "around/between/under" the instruments

[theophile]

This thread just gets more interesting all the time....

One recording I've often used for testing a system for imaging etc. is the Gimell recording by The Tallis Scholars of the famous Allegri Misere. It is being performed with antiphonal choirs, one close to the miking location and a second at the back of the church. On a really good system you can hear not only the dimensions of the space, but also get a feeling of the stone construction. On a mediocre system you hear only closer and more distant groupings. When a system "gets" a bit of magic happens.

I just got the LP today and listened to Side 1. Very good recording of unaccompanied choral music.

The two different groupings of the choirs had me wondering when I was listening.

Thanks for the rcommendation. I use recordings such as this to calibrate the set-up of my system also. As you said when a system does right by a great recording, 'magic' happens and some magic won't be evident unless the system is fully able to step-aside (figuratively speaking).

 

[theophile]

I was rereading this thread because I had relistened to the Gimmel Tallis Scholars Alegri Miserere recording. I stopped at this post. Something struck me which I was unaware of when I had previously read or posted on this thread. As I said I am a keen appreciator of great recordings, great recording engineers, their techniques and their equipment. Some weeks subsequent to reading/posting/visiting this thread I had been looking into the equipment used by one of my favourite recording engineers Bertil Alving, the engineer responsible for some of my most revered recordings. In particular I wanted to know which mics Alving had used on the widely lauded recording on the Proprius label titled Cantate Domino. I'm certain that many of you are not only familiar with it but also own a hard copy of it in one form or another. It is as I found out well known that Alving used a Revox A77 and two Pearls Here's a page discussing it:

https://tapesponding.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/great-tape-recorders-the-revox-a77/

As I said at the beginning of this post, it was a relistening to the Alegri Miserere tonight that had me searching for this thread and subsequently re-reading it and then noticing mfrench's reference to(and homage to) the Water Lily setup. My eyes widened when he particularly drew our attention to the Pearl mics in the photo of the recording session. The only Water Lily recording I own is Strunz & Farah — Misterio a recording which predated A Meeting By The River. I am very familiar with the expertise of Tim de Paravicini and knew of his bespoke cusomisation of recording gear and his bespoke recording electronics which had been utilised by Water Lily Acoustics. I am wondering now how much Kavi Alexander was inspired by Bertil Alving. I for one am most certainly inspired when I listen to recordings made by Alving.

Kavi at the helm, during the Meeting by the River sessions. That gear,.... drools.
near god-like status to me:

This needs to be posted every time that this recording is mentioned; A Meeting by the River.
In it, to the left; Ry Cooder. To the right, V.M. Bhatt.
Behind Ry; his son.
Behind V.M., his son.

In front of Ry, you can see a diagonal black object. That is the leg of a massive boom stand.
Directly in front of Ry, you can see two black rectangular objects.
That is a pair of customized Pearl large rectangular diaphragm mics, in Blumlein stereo configuration. You can see that they're in a vertically aligned orientation, and with their combined off-axis response (90º).

The results are astonishing in depth, and width, with precise player placement, and location of each player; including the amplitude clues that give the depth of the sons being behind the fathers.

 

[hifitommy]

one recording that flies in the face of minimalist miking techniques (my preference) is the planets suite (holst) with zubin mehta and the LAPHil. it has all the dynamics and spatial location cues BUT was recorded utilizing multimiking to the extreme. listen for yourself. there may be those out there that can hear it immediately but this is well disguised.

i am still reeling from this realization.

 

[theophile]

I've never heard the Mehta planets but the Previn Planets on Hi-Q recordings is amazing.

 

[woodj]

Very well writen Freds.Bands

 

[hifitommy]

well here is the recording on yt:

there is a slight delay at the beginning and you will think nothing is there but is starts at about 21 seconds in. it is the complete album

 

[kirk57]

Dimensions and realism....

A point source has no dimensions.
Two sources have one dimension.
Three sources in one plane, but not in alignment, have two dimensions.
Three sources, not in the same plane, have two dimensions, even though your ears may be at different locations.
Throw in reflecting surfaces to cause multiple phantom, or virtual, sources and things get complex very fast. It can seem like sound comes from all over (three dimensions).

A monophonic speaker in open air (no reflecting surfaces) produces a sound that has no dimensions to it. Put up a reflecting surface, eg ground, and you get reflections can simulate another dimension if you are close enough, depending on the surfaces

Put up two speakers with no reflecting surfaces and you get a one dimensional sound, with phase delays for a coherent source (stereo recording) giving the impression of some reality. Add in studio sounds (reflections, delays etc) and you get maybe the sound of how it was in the studio. Add in a reflecting surface or two and you get a more complex source with additional reflections, delays, taking you farther away from what was in the studio. But it is possible with properly setup recording and playback equipment to hear phase delays that appear to allow you to hear front-to-back delays, and two-dimensional effect.

Throw in a typical studio recording technique with semi-isolation between instruments, multiple microphones, a mixing console, various types of artificial reflections, reverberation, etc and you get something pretty much completely artificial that the recording engineer thinks he can sell. But this is not much like the real sound you may be wanting to hear.

If you place additional speakers in a different plane but with no reflecting surfaces, like behind and/or above you, depending on the recording, you may be able to hear more spatial effects. Then in a real world with more reflecting surfaces in the playback area, things get even more complicated. That is why speaker placement is so difficult if your goal is to hear somewhat realistic spatial effects. Further that artificial processing is why there are so few recordings that even approach realistic sound.

(I found this difficult to express; hope I'm not confusing or misleading the reader.)

A single source would be the feed from a microphone recording an instrument in an anechoic chamber (i.e no reflections of any kind). The same microphone recording the same instrument in a concert hall would record the instrument as well as the reflections form the surfaces of the hall, which would be considered another source. Thus, a mono recording can in fact have depth information (but not width)

 

[W9TR]

The theory and practice of binaural playback, which effectively uses two speakers (they happen to be placed on your ears) indicates that a spatial aural experience can be created where sounds appear to the listener to be placed 360 degrees in azimuth and +/- 90 degrees in altitude wrt the listener.

In the case of a true binaural recording technique, the listener can be effectively hear a re-creation of the entire environment as it appeared at the binaural microphone. Pretty cool.

 

[theophile]

The theory and practice of binaural playback, which effectively uses two speakers (they happen to be placed on your ears) indicates that a spatial aural experience can be created where sounds appear to the listener to be placed 360 degrees in azimuth and +/- 90 degrees in altitude wrt the listener.

In the case of a true binaural recording technique, the listener can be effectively hear a re-creation of the entire environment as it appeared at the binaural microphone. Pretty cool.

The key words in your post are:
"(they happen to be placed on your ears)".
I've posted about this at AK (http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/this-sounds-spookily-real-on-headphones.685755/)

 

[theophile]

AS mfrench's highly instructive postings and photos on this thread have illustrated, there is sometimes(often) more to a good recording than the use of two microphones. Despite the fact that their use really shouldn't be obvious, with some highly regarded recordings, on a competent system one can discern both the usage of additional mikes and when the gain is being adjusted on them. What I take out of the input from mfrench is that there is no set formula to mic numbers/placement or the blend of those elements. I surmise that the situation dictates the approach. Hence experience would count more toward the end result than(say) just what equipment one has to hand. Thus I'd imagine that State Of The Art equipment in the hands of an absolute novice would never guarantee superb results, as much as good equipment in the hands of an expert recording engineer. Therefore I could further surmise that the maven recordist draws upon prior experience and hunches rather than any set formula in order to attain a result that does the performance justice.
Just like assembling a great stereo system; The most important element lies between the ears.

 

[mfrench]

I'm bumping this thread up, as I've just finished repairing the Photobucket blight in my posts, starting at this post (well, beyond this one, but, essentially from this point onward):
http://audiokarma.org/forums/index....er-the-instruments.663298/page-2#post-8842864