Quantcast
Classical music recording.... - Page 5 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Classical music recording....
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #121
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
This thread

I read most of this thread again and saw some great posts. It's too bad that territorial factions formed because we're standing mostly on common ground; everyone here likes recording and apparently our customers are happy.

ON Soapbox

Old school recordists and even guys like Michael Bishop and the new Five/Four crew he's with (see link below) stand in traditions that are humbling to observe. They approach their craft with years of collective wisdom. None of them are gunslingers. They learn from one another and bring tested methods to the game. IMO to disrespect structured approaches to recording because I don't have any interest in them is not smart. We can all learn from one another, and the old schools have more to teach than those of us who only in the last 20 years or so picked up a recorder and some mics.

https://gearspace.com/board/remote-p...hat-worth.html

OFF Soapbox
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #122
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by XLR2XLR ➑️
I thought I would just correct Petrus who posted incorrect dynamic range
specs for the HD24XR on the first page (or with the EC-2 board fitted).

If you are spouting specs after suggesting reality checks etc., at least get them right.

The S/N Ratio for the HD24XR is actually 112dB A weighted.

And you know what I did a remote last week, mixed it at the weekend and it
sounds absolutely fantastic.

dfegad103dB
well, 103 dB was what HD24XR spec page gives as the dynamic range. How should I know you had fancy superboards fitted there? Maybe I should have called you or something?

And even 112 dB is still a far cry from the world's best dynamic range you advertized. Just check Lavry, Weiss, Stagetech...
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #123
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
The HD24XR is a factory model with the better converters (factory installed EC-2 upgrade and a HD24XR label instead of HD24 on the front).

103 dB is the HD24 range spec.
112 dB is the HD24XR range spec.

XLR2XLR has been clear from the opening post -- it is an HD24XR.

P.S. I use XR converters occasionally and they're good. How you drive a converter can make as much difference as the spec. I'm sure you know, for example, that recording at low levels wastes dynamic capacity and effectively raises the noise floor. fwiw I used to record directly to Scully and Studer 2 track machines and we didn't have anything like 112 dB, but we did manage to make some records and tapes for NPR to air.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrus ➑️
well, 103 dB was what HD24XR spec page gives as the dynamic range. How should I know you had fancy superboards fitted there? Maybe I should have called you or something?

And even 112 dB is still a far cry from the world's best dynamic range you advertized. Just check Lavry, Weiss, Stagetech...
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #124
Gear Addict
 
🎧 15 years
Ha ha... I love inadvertently making people feel threatened, they would not insult you otherwise and those who join the folly, conservative old hats. It's also interesting to note that comments made about denoising being the reason for success were for a recording that did not use "denoising". The Omni's which has a 20dBA noise floor are for the the classical recording in the future (March).

Advice : Read the posts before making yourself look like a complete ignoramous by insulting people regarding "getting a brain" (and to me not hide it in some yellow small print) quite an appropriate colour in fact. oh please get a life.

I recorded/mixed a 24 track world music gig last week, life affirming gig
and the HD24XR (EC-2) board fitted was excellent.

The more I use the internet the more I realize there are a lot of people who say and do not do, and often disseminate blatantly incorrect information, do be aware of this.

I agree dissing age old techniques is wrong, I prefer to have the opportunity to read up a bit and then apply
and adjust (time permitting) to suit the moment, which can never be fully accounted for until you are there.

Right, prepping for another big gig this Friday, someone mentioned something about a credit crunch?

cheers ; )
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #125
Gear Guru
 
joelpatterson's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
"Credit crunch" would be a great name for a new brand of granola.
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #126
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #127
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by XLR2XLR ➑️
I recorded/mixed a 24 track world music gig last week, life affirming gig and the HD24XR (EC-2) board fitted was excellent.
Post some clips if you can.

I'm curious why you opted to use that many tracks and why you recorded at 44.1 or 48K? Most acoustic music, at least at a professional project level, is recorded at higher rates so there will be natural air in the mix. Was it outdoors or in a bad acoustic space?
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #128
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick ➑️
I'm curious why you opted to use that many tracks and why you recorded at 44.1 or 48K? Most acoustic music, at least at a professional project level, is recorded at higher rates so there will be natural air in the mix. Was it outdoors or in a bad acoustic space?
Come on Michael, you should know better than to make blanket comments like that...

I think you would be surprised at the number of "professional" gigs that are recorded at 1FS (ie not high sample rates). Here in LA, I know of NOBODY at the top of the heap that are regularly working at 96KHz. The occasional CD and many of the film scores will be done at high res, but much is not and it has nothing to do with the space.

As for 24 tracks on a world music gig- I can easily see that happening. The vast majority of world music groups are not going to be mic'd like an orchestra. Depending on the size of the group and the range of instruments they are using, track counts can get huge.

So XLR likes his HD24XR. Great and all the more power to him. The XR does sound *way* better than the original. I know people doing quality professional work using Mackie Consoles. It isn't always about having the "best" of everything, but rather a rig you are comfortable with that allows you to work as you see fit. As long as the clients are happy, who cares what it is?

--Ben
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #129
Lives for gear
 
d_fu's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by fifthcircle ➑️
It isn't always about having the "best" of everything, but rather a rig you are comfortable with that allows you to work as you see fit. As long as the clients are happy, who cares what it is?
Very true, but the OP's choice of gear per se was never the subject of discussion, methinks...
(I'm not referring to the ad-hominen comment above, which I don't consider very helpful)
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #130
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
No argument here Ben.

Because I've made an assumption about pro sample rates I'm happy to stipulate for this discussion that most professional recordings are done at 1FS, as you suggest. I'm always glad to learn from a good statistical study.

My questions are out of curiosity about tracking that works for world music and what were XLR2XLR's reasons for those decisions. And finally, what came of it? Clips are almost always instructive.

P.S. I have an HD24XR and think the converters are the best out there for the money. They do good work at any SR.

P.S.S. If I had any argument with XLR2XLR it would be about using NR on music tracks. That's another topic, and I'm not certain that's what he actually said or meant to say. I'll admit NR is something I'm biased against in acoustic music recording.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fifthcircle ➑️
Come on Michael, you should know better than to make blanket comments like that...

I think you would be surprised at the number of "professional" gigs that are recorded at 1FS (ie not high sample rates). Here in LA, I know of NOBODY at the top of the heap that are regularly working at 96KHz. The occasional CD and many of the film scores will be done at high res, but much is not and it has nothing to do with the space.

As for 24 tracks on a world music gig- I can easily see that happening. The vast majority of world music groups are not going to be mic'd like an orchestra. Depending on the size of the group and the range of instruments they are using, track counts can get huge.

So XLR likes his HD24XR. Great and all the more power to him. The XR does sound *way* better than the original. I know people doing quality professional work using Mackie Consoles. It isn't always about having the "best" of everything, but rather a rig you are comfortable with that allows you to work as you see fit. As long as the clients are happy, who cares what it is?

--Ben
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #131
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick ➑️
Post some clips if you can.

I'm curious why you opted to use that many tracks and why you recorded at 44.1 or 48K? Most acoustic music, at least at a professional project level, is recorded at higher rates so there will be natural air in the mix. Was it outdoors or in a bad acoustic space?
I only thought that most acoustic music recorded at a professional level would be recorded professionally. (not paying any attention at all to clock rates)
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #132
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush ➑️
I only thought that most acoustic music recorded at a professional level would be recorded professionally. (not paying any attention at all to clock rates)
I would not record acoustic music below 88.2 (60 if they made 'em) because there is a clear sonic difference. I also think most converters are optimal at 96 for design/build reasons, so I favor 96. Yet for close-miced multitrack recordings, lower rates are sometimes sufficient IMO.

Since not all projects or all pros are the same, and because I don't know statistically who uses what rates, I won't argue about it. All we have on it are anecdotes.

If I read your point rightly I'm with you on this one, and I'll assume most acoustic recording pros use 2FS until a good statistic says otherwise. My other assumption is that most other pros hear as well or better than I do and make their SR decisions for similar reasons.
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #133
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
This subject has been beaten to death. There have been scientific listening tests with many golden ears, where converter A at 48 was preferred over converter B at 96 in relation to the analogue source. Its the converter design, not the sample rate. All things equal it doesn't hurt to record higher. There is more accuracy in some DSP processes with a higher fs. But professionals (people who do it for money and are worth it) have often more important things to worry about. Actually enough chocolate for the musicians might have a MUCH higher influence on the quality of the recording.
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #134
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Great reminder how variable the SR issue is. For the sake of this discussion I'm sorry I mentioned it because it's not very germane.

Quote:
Originally Posted by audio ergo sum ➑️
This subject has been beaten to death. There have been scientific listening tests with many golden ears, where converter A at 48 was preferred over converter B at 96 in relation to the analogue source. Its the converter design, not the sample rate. All things equal it doesn't hurt to record higher. There is more accuracy in some DSP processes with a higher fs. But professionals (people who do it for money and are worth it) have often more important things to worry about. Actually enough chocolate for the musicians might have a MUCH higher influence on the quality of the recording.
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #135
Lives for gear
 
d_fu's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick ➑️
I would not record acoustic music below 88.2 (60 if they made 'em)
Just one quick comment, quite a number of converters and audio interfaces will support 64k (That's 32k in double speed mode, i.e. at reduced track count when using ADAT).
Old 5th February 2009 | Show parent
  #136
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_fu ➑️
Just one quick comment, quite a number of converters and audio interfaces will support 64k (That's 32k in double speed mode, i.e. at reduced track count when using ADAT).
Interesting thought, but clearly impractical until we get master clocks, i.e. AD and DA devices, that can do it.

Dan Lavry's paper (I forgot which) is compelling to me about 60k SR as an ideal rate.

This thread has sure moved off topic!
Old 5th February 2009 | Show parent
  #137
Lives for gear
 
NorseHorse's Avatar


I once recorded a show.
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #138
Gear Nut
 
MBBCFP's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio ergo sum ➑️
. . . You still can record musical performances in venues, BUT NO MUSIC...
Let's remember what we are doing. We are capturing an impression of a performance that happened in real time. No matter who or how good or how experienced or how expensive, it is still only a recording of a live performance. You can compare this to a photograph - no matter how good - of the Grand Canyon. It just ain't the same as being there.

Go to live performances to understand what live music is supposed to sound like. If your aim to capture the illusion of the live performance that is a totally different issue from creating a "listenable CD" version. Neither is right or wrong, just different.
Old 15th February 2009 | Show parent
  #139
Lives for gear
 
boojum's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
I just finished reading this from start to finish. It has veered from helpful to vitriolic to dogs, to vitriolic to helpful. It has been interesting. It also illustrates the Army's famous Six P's still hold true: "Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance." In the best of all possible worlds all classical recordists would have graduate degrees in music and an associated engineering discipline. In addition they would be geniuses at handling people well and never make mistakes. But, alas, we are in a sea of mere mortals. Yes, the more we do something the better chance we have to getting better at it. And work-study with a good lead is invaluable.

But that does not preclude the rest of us from having a chance at learning the craft. Granted, we will probably never be as good as the engineer musicians, but not everybody gets to play major league ball. There is always triple A, double A, and single A. There is room for all of us to aspire to greatness at this art. Just because I am not going to wind up with a huge studio, DGG banging at my door, the Concertgebouow calling me about when I want to rent the hall and every major classical orchestra begging for my services is not reason enough for me to not read, learn, practice and give it my best each and every time.

I am not going to the big dance, I will not be a major leaguer, ever, but I am going to enjoy playing the game and will play it as well as I possibly can. And I am counting on you folks to help me along on this as you already have.

Cheers
Old 15th February 2009 | Show parent
  #140
Gear Head
 
rubycakes's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Thank you Boojum,

That's what this thread has been missing: humility balanced with a desire to continually improve.
Old 15th February 2009 | Show parent
  #141
Lives for gear
 
NorseHorse's Avatar
Thumbs up

Well said. thumbsup
Old 16th February 2009 | Show parent
  #142
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by boojum ➑️
It also illustrates the Army's famous Six P's still hold true: "Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance."
I knew it as PP equals PP. Poor Planning equals Poor Performance. Most applicable in the Army Band. Like you didn't know that you would have any trainees graduating their 16 week course until 7 days (or less) before graduation.

-----

The rate I use depends on what I'm doing. If I'm doing it with video, I'll record at 48k, since that's what is used in the video codec, and I want to use less time converting things to a desirable result (or have less of a probability of failure in the conversion process). If I'm needing to burn a CD of the recording before leaving the site of the recording, I'll record at CD quality. I generally prefer to record at DSD assuming that I have enough time to Dilly and Dally in post. But I'm not against NOT recording in DSD, if it's not convenient to do so.
Old 6th March 2009 | Show parent
  #143
Gear Addict
 
🎧 15 years
Ok got the job, that's the first hurdle over.

I have confirmed my choice of gear :

SM Pro Audio PR8E x 2 (self modified with NPO recap and new opamps, LM4562's)
2 stereo pairs (NT1A matched and SP B1's pair) probably in a ORTF variant
K&M adjustable clamps on a 50KGS capable T bar 3.6M stand
K&M standard mic stands for soloists (choice of NT1, SE2200A, SE1A's for spots)
HD24XR master recorder
HD24 Back up recorder
Mic cabling
Compere Mic splitter
2 X UPS one for each machine.
AKG K240 and Beyerdynamic DT990 Pro headphones.
Mults TRS / TRS (pre's to recorders)
Toolbox

I am considering 24bit 44.kHz unless anyone here more knowledgeable convinces me otherwise. Thanks for your responses so far.
Old 6th March 2009 | Show parent
  #144
Lives for gear
 
Corran's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
HD24's apparently have some kind of clock issues which causes sub-par performance at 44 so I always do 48. I haven't actually tested this claim but better safe than sorry. Perhaps someone knows the mechanics behind it.
Old 6th March 2009 | Show parent
  #145
Gear Addict
 
🎧 15 years
Crystal may clock at 96kHz and therefore internal SR works best to 48kHz.

Still have to SR to 44.1kHz at some point as it's destined for CD-R.

I suppose at least then your SR is a known quantity.

good point

cheers for input.
Old 8th March 2009 | Show parent
  #146
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
For me there is one big problem with 96k/24. On its own it sounds great, but when I downsample it to 44k1 for a conventional CD release the options are more limited than recording 88k2/24 originally. I find 96k downsampled to 44k1 can actually sound flatter and more digital than recording 44k1 in the first place. If you record 88k2 you can create a 44k1 version with no filters, or with a notch at 22.05kHz simply by making the 88k2 single stream into an old-style two-wire signal path.

If you put the two streams directly into a 44k1 digital mixer you can either use the first left half of the 88k2 as the left channel of a 44k1 and the first right half of the 88k2 as the right 44k1 channel. If you hear aliasing or think it might be a problem (close strings or bright percussion) you add the two left 88k2 components into one, and the same with the right channels. That way you get a notch at 22.05kHz from the half-sample time spacing of the samples.

If you still hear aliasing you can use filters if you want to.

For me the bugaboo of digital audio for critical listeners has always been the low-pass filtering, especially digital brickwall filters for anti-aliasing. They can wreck the sound with pre-echos of transients, ringing and group delay. They measure fine with a sine-wave, but do not sound fine with music.

Don't be a snob about gear, just use the best you can get your hands on. I love the range of Rode mics - NT55, NT6, K2 - and they do not cost an arm and a leg.
Old 8th March 2009 | Show parent
  #147
Lives for gear
 
NorseHorse's Avatar
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyF ➑️
Don't be a snob about gear, just use the best you can get your hands on.
Was that really just said? On GearSlutz?
Old 9th March 2009 | Show parent
  #148
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
www.gearsnobz.com
Old 9th March 2009 | Show parent
  #149
Lives for gear
 
sonare's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick ➑️
why you recorded at 44.1 or 48K? Most acoustic music, at least at a professional project level, is recorded at higher rates so there will be natural air in the mix.
Errrr... a producer I worked with recently with a long history of D-G projects told me he ALWAYS worked at 44.1. Didn't explain, but I I had had no reason to doubt him. We were doing 24 tracks of orchestra at 24/44.1. This is not to say that all D-G PCM stuff is done at 44.1.

Rich
Old 9th March 2009 | Show parent
  #150
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorseHorse ➑️
Was that really just said? On GearSlutz?
Not only that!, but it was said by Tony F.

with thanks for your appearance here, Tony.
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 108 views: 11873
Avatar for d_fu
d_fu 3rd April 2007
replies: 22 views: 22856
Avatar for Jbassist
Jbassist 1st November 2017
replies: 90 views: 7996
Avatar for rakim87
rakim87 16th November 2012
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump