Orchestral\Classical fans: a wonderful recording!

Dan Banquer · « **Reply #20 on:** 13 Jul 2005, 06:16 pm »

"you gatta love a well exectuted blumlein recording"
Damn right! It's the only recording I have out of 400 others that images fairly realistically.
d.b.

nickspicks · « **Reply #21 on:** 13 Jul 2005, 07:16 pm »

Cool...
I've heard the sf12 a bunch. wonderful mic.
I love good stereo mics.

csero · « **Reply #22 on:** 13 Jul 2005, 07:50 pm »

Quote from: Dan Banquer

"you gatta love a well exectuted blumlein recording"
Damn right! It's the only recording I have out of 400 others that images fairly realistically.
d.b.

The Blumleins setup has lots of problems. Can be nice but faaaaaaaar from realistic. Blumlein himself knew about the problems.

nickspicks · « **Reply #23 on:** 13 Jul 2005, 07:56 pm »

depends...

the funny part is tonality. a natural roll off which can leave things sounding flimsy.
but when everything is right...oh man.

Russell Dawkins · « **Reply #24 on:** 14 Jul 2005, 01:18 am »

csero wrote:[The Blumleins setup has lots of problems. Can be nice but faaaaaaaar from realistic. Blumlein himself knew about the problems.]

sorry - don't know how to do the quote window

I would be interested in knowing more about the problems that Blumlein was aware of.
Russell

csero · « **Reply #25 on:** 14 Jul 2005, 02:52 pm »

Quote from: Russell Dawkins

csero wrote:[The Blumleins setup has lots of problems. Can be nice but faaaaaaaar from realistic. Blumlein himself knew about the problems.]

sorry - don't know how to do the quote window

I would be interested in knowing more about the problems that Blumlein was aware of.
Russell

"It can be shown, however, that phase differences necessary at the ears for low frequency directional sensation are not produced solely by phase differences at two loudspeakers (both of which communicate with both ears) but that intensity differences at the speakers are necessary to give an effect of phase difference."

Note the low. In mid and high freq, phase diff is not recorded with coincident mics, but even if it is, it will be destroyed by the "loudspeakers (both of which communicate with both ears)"

"the sense of direction of the apparent sound source will only be conveyed to a listener for the full frequency range for positions lying between the loud speakers;"

The never ending debate about the wide soundstage

"if it is desired to convey the impression that the sound source has moved to a position beyond the space between the loudspeakers the modifying networks may be arranged to reverse the phase of that loudspeaker remote from which the source is desired to appear, and this will suffice to convey the desired impression for the low frequency sound."

So it works only with tricks? And again the low. Maybe trinks won't help in the HF at all?

"If difficulties arise in reproduction, they may be overcome by employing a second pair of loudspeakers differently spaced and having a different modifying network from the first pair."

If tricks can't help, we need multichannel?

Then we haven't even touched topics like excessive ambience pickup at normal listening distance, forlding rear ambient sound to front channels, tonality change for central instruments, lack of head shadow effect etc.

nickspicks · « **Reply #26 on:** 14 Jul 2005, 03:09 pm »

its things like "exessive ambient pickup" that add to the depth and width of the sound stage.

those rear lobes of the figure of 8 polar pattern are out of phase w/the forward facing ones.
with a blumlein config, you get those two rear lobes...which overlap w/the opposite forward lobes of each microphone. its that out of phase info which makes it sound so sweet. You just dont get enough of that information with other directional microphones.

http://www.mtsu.edu/~dsmitche/rim456/Materials/456microphone_techniques.html

this has a nice diagram of what is happening with crossed figure of 8 mics.

Mid-Side recordings can have this effect as well.

csero · « **Reply #27 on:** 14 Jul 2005, 03:42 pm »

Quote from: nickspicks

its things like "exessive ambient pickup" that add to the depth and width of the sound stage. ...

Add artifical depth... to the above sentence and we agree. And it also results in the "you would be sitting further away than the microphone was placed" sindrome, as Russ said.

Quote from: nickspicks

those rear lobes of the figure of 8 polar pattern are out of phase w/the forward facing ones.
with a blumlein config, you get those two rear lobes...which overlap w/the opposite forward lobes of each microphone. its that out of phase info which makes it sound so sweet. You just dont get enough of that information with other directional microphones.
...

Sweet? Maybe. Realistic ?????

Quote from: nickspicks

http://www.mtsu.edu/~dsmitche/rim456/Materials/456microphone_techniques.html

this has a nice diagram of what is happening with crossed figure of 8 mics. ...

The whole page is about attempts to fix the Blumlein setup.

Don't misunderstand me, Blumlein setup can give a nice sound, but not realistic.

nickspicks · « **Reply #28 on:** 14 Jul 2005, 04:57 pm »

one mans sweet...is another mans sweet and low.

its prefference i suppose. in all of my ambient recording endevors...the ones that I consider my best contain a majority of blumlein configs.

nathanm · « **Reply #29 on:** 14 Jul 2005, 06:27 pm »

I don't want to get off on a tangent about the nature and purpose of high fidelity, but all I know is that stereo miking and a placement which allows for more room reverb to blend with the dry sound, just sounds cooler than dry, closely-placed mono mics blended after the fact.

I experimented with miking my guitar cab with two Shure Beta 57s in a XY config (about 4 feet away) and although I personally hate the rotten frequency response of these mics, doing it in stereo really gave a subjective improvement. It was closer to what my ears were hearing in the room. (i.e. about 25% of reality as opposed to 10% of reality with a single mic against the grille) Unfortunately I don't have 2 grand handy to spend on an SF-12, although the idea makes me salivate. The Royer folks sure knew how to push MY buttons on that demo CD, the SM57 vs. the Royer mic on guitar was not even funny. The SM57 was like an icepick in your ears. A really cruel, cruel demo! Heh!

I just don't think there's such a thing as a realistic recording. All it needs to do is sound subjectively kick ass enough to a dude on his couch. The recording engineer is the one punishing himself; A\Bing Reality with what a mic hears. That's the torture test! As great as Russell's recording is, I am sure actually being there was an entirely different experience. Only he is qualified to judge the realism of it, the rest of us just want to hear something enjoyable.

nickspicks · « **Reply #30 on:** 14 Jul 2005, 06:50 pm »

i'll agree with most of that.

as someone who tapes a lot of concerts, i can say that a rare few actualy do re-create the experience to a point where I know its as close to real as it gets.

good gear...on both ends of the transducer, make the difference. recordings are only as good as the playback hardware. and of course...the same can be said in reverse. its that magic combo of both that is true hi-fi reproduction.

YMMV...of course.

_scotty_ · « **Reply #31 on:** 23 Jul 2005, 09:41 pm »

Russell I received my CD's yesterday. Both versions sound wonderful.
Congratulations on a job well done. Thanks for your prompt shipment.
Scotty

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #32 on:** 13 Dec 2005, 04:55 am »

I received my copy today, thank you Russell. Excellent recording !!

Chris[/list:u]

Russell Dawkins · « **Reply #33 on:** 14 Dec 2005, 12:22 am »

Glad you liked it, Chris.
These will continue to be available through me until the CD is re-released. The label has not yet been chosen, nor the new art work for it finalized, so I imagine it will not be on the shelves for a while, as it is not the top priority for the conductor, yet. He still has the three CDs I recorded for him last year in final stages for release.
Russell
rdawkins*at*shaw.ca

( Feb 25 09 - belatedly edited email address to avoid spam!)

Captain Humble · « **Reply #34 on:** 18 Jan 2006, 01:24 pm »

lonewolf said:

Quote

I received my copy today, thank you Russell. Excellent recording !!
If you've not heard it, I'd contact Russell for a copy...well worth owning.
Chris

Chris has never steered me wrong so I bought all three versions. They arrived Tuesday.

Can't wait for a quiet time to give them a listen.

Thanks Russell!

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #35 on:** 18 Jan 2006, 05:19 pm »

Quote from: Captain Humble

lonewolf said:
Quote
I received my copy today, thank you Russell. Excellent recording !!
If you've not heard it, I'd contact Russell for a copy...well worth owning.
Chris
Chris has never steered me wrong so I bought all three versions. They arrived Tuesday.

Can't wait for a quiet time to give them a listen.

Thanks Russell!

Thanks CH/Jeff ! After you've listened, let me know what you thought... !!

Chris[/list:u]

brj · « **Reply #36 on:** 18 Jan 2006, 05:49 pm »

Hi Lonewolf and Captain!

Quote from: Captain Humble

Chris has never steered me wrong so I bought all three versions.

3 versions?

If I remember correctly, the original version (which I bought) had a small amount of leveling applied, and then a second, completely unlimited version was released. I didn't see any mention of a third version in the thread... how is it different?

Thanks!

Captain Humble · « **Reply #37 on:** 19 Jan 2006, 02:34 am »

brj asked:

Quote

3 versions?

If I remember correctly, the original version (which I bought) had a small amount of leveling applied, and then a second, completely unlimited version was released. I didn't see any mention of a third version in the thread... how is it different?

Below is a quote from a private message Russell sent me in response to a similar question.

Quote

Hi Jeff,
yes, I do have CDs still for sale. I have 3 versions:
1) mastered with compression,
2) mastered without compression and
3) unmastered.
If you are interested in it for simple musical enjoyment, I would recommend the mastered with compression version if you are buying only one. The others are mainly of technical interest to some, or as a demonstration of why compression is a good idea on dynamic orchestral music!
Mastering in this case involves altering the soundfield a little to fill in the center rear of the orchestra, adding a small amount of EQ to compensate for microphone characteristics and distance, and subtle compression to raise the levels of the pianissimo violin passages to be easily audible without blowing out your speakers on the loud bits.
2) is the same as 1) but without the compression.
The unmastered version (3) is exactly as it came off the master tape.
None of these have any reverb added.

Hope that helps.
Jeff

brj · « **Reply #38 on:** 19 Jan 2006, 02:40 am »

Thanks, Jeff!

Russell Dawkins · « **Reply #39 on:** 19 Jan 2006, 09:27 am »

brj
Just to clarify the situation, in October '05 I sent a copy of the recording to Robert E Greene. He liked it, generally, but made a couple of comments which provided incentive for me to try one more mastering, especially since his second point was already of some concern to me.
The comments he made were:
1) that he thought the compression was slightly audible. Listening to it again, I had to agree and I modified it to be less audible. This also had the effect of lowering the levels in the quietest sections by about 2dB, so the disc is generally 2dB quieter.
2) the stereo image was perhaps overwide or as he put it, a little too left/right. I also agreed with that, and in fact had addressed that in the very first mastering in 1995, but with the only means available to me at the time, namely panning in slightly (adding a little right to left and vice versa). In the June mastering (which is what I has sent out up to that point and which is what Dan Banquer and Nathan Marciniak initially commented on) I did no manipulation of stereo width.

In response to REG's observation and since I now have the capability of manipulating the stereo signal in such a way as to separate it into its sum and difference components, and adjust the relative amounts of each, I did just that, using a little less of the difference component. After decoding back to stereo, the centre of the orchestra is slightly more evident. This was all done in the digital domain with high quality processing. I used a Metric Halo MIO 2882 +DSP.
This is now identified as the Nov 2, 2005 mastering and is what I have been sending out since then, as I think it sounds better, although, really, not by much.
If any "early adopters" who bought the earlier version is interested in the newer, I will send you a copy for $5 out of respect for your early support and interest. As you can imagine, that's pretty well cost, as it includes shipping.
If you send your email address, I will send you more details, including my Paul Cantelon solo piano recording which I now can sell.
Russell