why do recording engineers do this ?
- Thread starter donberry
- Start date
mfrench
Addicted Member
The implications of this are very impostant and if you think about it also answer this topics question.
Not all production means are the same though, I wonder how this screen from Jazzmutant's Dexter (DAW controller/software) relates to the humble 'potentiometer'.
I've never worked at a DAW. It really didn't even cross my mind, as I've never seen that type of mixer. What was in my mind, when I posted that, was a more traditional mixing console, a soundboard - the likes of which most people can relate to with channels and channels of vertically arranged sliders and pots - some of which are what, 48 channels wide?! Sometimes combining two consoles together,....
When working with a mixer that is literally that wide, its really easy to get two players mixed to the same point, as each players position is assigned in the mix by the 180º sweeping pot that I mentioned. It would take a super human effort, from a crows nest-like position, with binocular vision in order to take in every single pot position in the mix, to make sure nobodies toes were getting stepped on.
That how two people end up in one spot in contrived mix-downs.
mfrench
Addicted Member
You should enjoy it.
The technique used in that recording is a long established technique by Alan Blumlein. It involves two figure-of-eight mics. That mic pick-up pattern is literally a figure 8. The front half of the eight is signal impulse +Pos, and the rear lobe is signal impulse -Neg, a truly balanced signal.
When two figs-of-eight are crossed in perpendicular to each other, they create an X with truly square crossing (not represented well with this X). This X has the rounded lobes of the 8's, and, is essentially a clover leaf-like arrangement.
This is one of those moments when a picture is worth a thousand words, isn't it?
Now, thats Blumlein stereo.
Why are the mics turned away from the players?
Each mic is turned away from the center source by 45º off-axis to the centered source, which is referred to as 0º axis. The combined off-axis response is said to be 90º with Blumlein stereo. It is from a category of stereo techniques that are called Coincidental, for the fact that the sound influence arrives at the exact same moment to each mic. Coincidental stereo patterns can be mixed to monaural without phase cancellation issues. This was crucial in the days of mono. In fact, at first they were not thought of as stereo, rather, they were a way of getting a 90º image capture of an entire orchestra into a monaural mix; only 30+ years later were coincidental patterns found to be good for stereo reproduction - they were established during the mono years.
Mics of the First Order:
The mics being turned that far off-axis only produce an attenuation between mics. A first order mic can be turned outward to 55º off-axis before it starts to lose frequency response. From 0º -> 55º off-axis only produces attenuation, not frequency response alteration.
So, by turning the mic 45º from the source, and turning the other mic 45º the opposite direction, the right mic is hearing a quieter signal than the left mic. If the source stays at 0º, each mic hears the exact same sound pressure. But if the sound source is off of the 0º centered source point, one mic will begin to hear that source as being louder, and its image will be intensified or attenuated in that side of the mix, depending on where that source is within the sound field being captured.
Everything in front of the mics is properly represented in its proper location in the mix by this intensification/attenuation, just as your ears would be processing the same information. The blendings are based on clues established by attenuation of signal strength, or the intensification of signal strength, dependent on each players position within the sound field being captured.
Last edited:
Maron Horonzakz
Well-Known Member
IN my company,,Once the recording engineer sets the mic levels..To prevent him from altering anything,,I shoot him !!!!!
Brett a
~◦●○o0o○●◦~
It doesn't really bother me that much. I don't ever assume that studio recordings aspire to deliver the same type of soundstage imaging that a live acoustic performance would. They do usually have a good soundstage, just not a "live" one.
Take Traffic's "Low Spark" LP. Here's an album with pretty good imaging, good instrument separation, and an overall soundstage that is not only wider than the speakers, it also projects out in front as well as recedes beyond the rear wall. It's all very nice, clear and tidy.
But it's obviously assembled from individual tracks; no way I'd mistake it for a live music event; and it's not supposed to be IMO.
There are many types of recordings. This is one type and recordings that do intend to preserve/present a "live" sound are a different type. Take Randy Weston's "Portraits" series. Esp. "Portraits of Thelonious Monk" Sounds to me like a two-mic, single position "capture" of the four guys playing in the room it was recorded in. Now that's a "live" soundstage. But these are rare IME.
I think the issue is best addressed by altering one's expectations and enjoying the craft of the producer in the project. Studio music is not "live" just as a sitcom on TV isn't the same as watching a video of the time you visited your crazy aunt (for instance--if you had one).
Take Traffic's "Low Spark" LP. Here's an album with pretty good imaging, good instrument separation, and an overall soundstage that is not only wider than the speakers, it also projects out in front as well as recedes beyond the rear wall. It's all very nice, clear and tidy.
But it's obviously assembled from individual tracks; no way I'd mistake it for a live music event; and it's not supposed to be IMO.
There are many types of recordings. This is one type and recordings that do intend to preserve/present a "live" sound are a different type. Take Randy Weston's "Portraits" series. Esp. "Portraits of Thelonious Monk" Sounds to me like a two-mic, single position "capture" of the four guys playing in the room it was recorded in. Now that's a "live" soundstage. But these are rare IME.
I think the issue is best addressed by altering one's expectations and enjoying the craft of the producer in the project. Studio music is not "live" just as a sitcom on TV isn't the same as watching a video of the time you visited your crazy aunt (for instance--if you had one).
You'd be surprised to know how much in pop music is highly processed. Some of the best recordings by bands like Supertramp or the Doors, are collections of bits of tape and artificial ambiance. Voices are equalized, sped up beyond recognition. Not unlike movie magic, recordings in pop music are not meant to represent live music at all. The goal is to make a hit song. Of the course the Beatles were major pioneers in this area.
Parnelly
Well-Known Member
I think the whole topic is kinda messy and vague. I mean lots of music recorded has channel separation. Old Van Halen for instance. One channel is the reverb echo from him and the other is the actual guitar track. Without either one obviously your not gonna get that eddie feel. As well something say like metallica's black album, you know that on sad but true there is overdubbed guitar to make that heavy heavy sound and its only done on certain notes and not all. Bob rock could be to blame for that because he steered them away from their previous style and sound of just having each guitar on one side. But it just might be him to blame for that album selling millions of copy's worldwide. Take the good with the bad and appreciate those well put together albums more.
I am not really asking for a perfect sound stage as no matter what, I pretty much know it is individual tracks put together, but I go back to the drum in the one song, when one tom is completely on the other side of the "stage" and the drummer would have to be rubber man to get to it, is just hard for me not to notice.
Is just me, but while I still listen to many of these recordings, it just takes away from my enjoyment of it. Once I notice it, every time after that it just sticks out like a sore thumb
Peter Walker
Well-Known Member
My particular hate is the too often used recording technique that puts you head INSIDE a piano that sounds as if it's 40 ft wide! ARRRGH!
voltcontrol
Fizheuer Zieheuer
mfrench
Addicted Member
Well, if you give it a spin, you'll have some reference towards how it all went down, and, in how two mics can create amazing imaging.
Pim,
Its a fantastic recording. And its available in multiple formats, including vinyl (or used to be - I'm not exactly current on its distribution).
Last edited:
Facinating discussion, thanks, folks, I've learned something new today. I listen to many varied types of music, and now I get it...like Zep's "When the Levee Breaks," do THAT live, LOL. Bonnie Raitt has used some very different styles of mixing, and I enjoy Dave Matthews Band for their engineers, too. Their, "Remember Two Things" is very intersting, studio-live is what I call the first few songs. I don't know diddly about all this, but I've been listening to music long enough to notice the different effects in a big way and I find everything interesting, except for the current habit of compressing the hell out of recordings. I hate it when I find a new artist I really like, but can't listen to it on my very revealing system. 
wilberforce
Active Member
I know you guys want to have an imaginary soundstage where you can imagine where the players are as if they were on stage, but in mixing a multi-track record, even a live one, that never comes into consideration, at least not in my experience.
One example: you have a stereo pair of background vocals (think the Ray-lettes, or the Pips). Now which sounds better, to pan them over to stage left at about 3 and 4 o'clock, or to hard pan them left and right? It's the latter that sounds fuller.
Drums are always recorded (remember, I'm talking about multi-track conventions in pop and rock music) with a stereo pair of mics overhead the entire kit. Again, these are always panned hard L & R. Why? It SOUNDS better. :yes:
There's a million ways to skin the cat of stereo recording, but what I've described is what nearly everyone does, and has done since the days of 16 track.
One example: you have a stereo pair of background vocals (think the Ray-lettes, or the Pips). Now which sounds better, to pan them over to stage left at about 3 and 4 o'clock, or to hard pan them left and right? It's the latter that sounds fuller.
Drums are always recorded (remember, I'm talking about multi-track conventions in pop and rock music) with a stereo pair of mics overhead the entire kit. Again, these are always panned hard L & R. Why? It SOUNDS better. :yes:
There's a million ways to skin the cat of stereo recording, but what I've described is what nearly everyone does, and has done since the days of 16 track.
mfrench
Addicted Member
Wow.. If you don't know this yet (I didn't)i, have a listen to it.:thmbsp:
This is an image from the A Meeting by the River sessions that I found.
You can see the mics by Ry (guitarist on left), slightly higher than his head level. They're vertically oriented, one over the other.
The imaging of this recording is exactly as you see in the photo, and a purely natural acoustic blending, with wonderful aural imaging cues that are almost ghost-like - magical stuff.
Brett a
~◦●○o0o○●◦~
Ahhh, I see. I dislike that too. Fortunately, I don't hear it that often.
But it really does bug me on Jessica Williams' "Live at Yoshi's" CDs. It's a jazz piano trio. The piano and bass are fairly correct in their placement/size, but the drum kit has been split down the middle behind them like Wilberforce said a couple pasts back. The floor tom and ride are panned hard left and the snare/high hat/kick-drum hard right. It's like the drummer has a 12 foot reach!
It's particularly disappointing because the engineer seemed to place the other instrument with some intention of fidelity to the performance room.
Brett a
~◦●○o0o○●◦~
Maybe we could address this by imagining that Kenny Buttrey, (the drummer on Harvest) had set up a single floor tom way across the studio and trained his Saint Bernard to thump it with his paw when given the signal.
No?.....well,,,,,:scratch2:
Suggestions like this are why I make the big bucks and drive the company Lexus.
Dr. Mordo
Doctor of Rockology
This is a bit of a stretch. I know you are generalizing, but this is too much. Change the 'always' to 'often' and it's closer.
And really this goes back to the original post - what does 'sounds better' mean? Some might think mono sounds better. Are they wrong?
A fantastic binaural recording is "From the Caves of the Iron Mountain" by Tony Levin. It is really, really cool, and it really explores the concept of soundstage. It also loses everything that makes it special when you convert it to mp3. It is the most glaring example I have found of the problems with lossy codecs.
Scroll about 2/3 of the way down the page to read about it