Conversations with Jim Anderson

[clarke68]

Hey Jim!

Just wanted to say I've been a fan of yours for years, but I didn't know it. I've always loved the sound on those David Murray DIW albums, and on the Masada studio albums...I always said to myself "man, those Japanese dudes really know how to record...". After I found this board I looked you up and realized it was you all along!

Anyway...question for you. What do you look for in a home audio system? Many audiophiles go on about the importance of accuracy, flat frequency response, etc. (of course many others go on about tubes, single drivers, euphonic distortion, etc.), but the general consensus seems to be that studio gear is too "clinical". I've perused the thread and found your preference for Genelecs and Meyers in the studio...do you like those when you listen for pleasure also? Is there a difference in your mind between a "monitoring" setup and a "listening" setup?

Thanks in advance. Really grateful for your presence here on the board.

[jim anderson]

Hi Clarke,

Thanks for the nice words.

In the studio, I look for a monitor that allows me to hear the problems in a recording or in a mix: too much bass, too little bass, noises, clicks, pops, etc. all mostly unmusical things. I feel that I'm not listening "to" the speakers, but "through" the speakers. Very Zen-like, don't you think? I say that because, sometimes I have to use monitors that either I don't like or aren't used to. When I mixed first the Von Freeman album, I had to use Mackie monitors. They tend to be a bit bass heavy and when mixing you need to take that into consideration, otherwise your mix will be bass light. Most of the David Murray recordings were mixed on Electro-Voice EV-100's. Sometime during that period, I crossed over to the Meyer HD-1's (on one of the George Adams albums for Somethin' Else/EMI/Blue Note, I'm certain.)

At home, I'm looking for something completely musical. My home system (in the living room) is a Wilson Audio Watt/Puppie set that I've had for about 15 years - along with the Wamm Subwoofer. When I listen to music, there, I completely forget about listening technically. There, I can concentrate on the musical things in a recording. I first heard this system at my friend, Randy Ezratty's, house. I was listening to the album "Elis & Tom" and heard things in the music that I'd never heard before. I knew, then, that I had to have something like that in my home. Frank Wess called me up and asked what I was listening to and I suggested he go and listen to the Wilson Watt/Puppies. The next time I saw him in the studio he said "I hate you." I didn't know what he was talking about. "You made me spend all that money on speakers!" Funny, but I had the same experience with Akira Taguchi, producer for JVC. He hates me, too, for spending all that money.

Speakers are an acquired taste and I'm not insisting that you spend all that money (mine were factory seconds for a slight cabinet blemish in the back left corner of one of them - so I saved a lot!)

I've also got a system in the dining room which consists of old large Advents (the original Large Advent from 30 years ago - or more) and those were the staple of many recording engineer's home systems as I was coming up.

I hope that gets some comments flowing.

Best,

jim

By the way Fred Kaplan just review the new Zorn project that I recorded:

http://blog.stereophile.com/fredkaplan/043008jazz/

[Alexander Hawkins]

Jim - afraid I know nothing of all this technical stuff(!) - but just wanted to say (I think it's one of yours): the Derek Bailey 'Standards' album on Tzadik sounds absolutely incredible. Really, probably the best guitar I've ever heard. Any memories of that session?

[Chalupa]

Jim, did I see your name on Jay Hoggard"s - "Solo Vibraphone" album??

[jim anderson]

Hi. I hope you'll forgive the delay in responding.

We graduated our next group of students at NYU and I've attended the AES Convention in Amsterdam.

Since I was in Europe, I was invited to teach at the University of Luleå's Music Technology School in Piteå, Sweden.

About Derek's recording, we made two, if I remember, and if it's the one from Avatar Studios (Studio A), that was a Neumann USM 69 on his guitar. That recording may not have been released. It was done the morning before John's "Cobra" recording (2002?), which was in that afternoon. So, the memory of that day is a little hectic. There was another recording with Derek, along with a pipa duet, as well. Those were recorded at Clinton Recording, Studio A, and I was using the Sanken CU-41 for Derek. I had found the USM 69 to work extremely well on pipa. (Now there's an esoteric piece of information for you.) I had used it on one of Zorn's Filmworks projects (Filmworks 8?), with pipa. (Another piece of esoterica: an SM 57 on pipa works well for PA. Situate the mic perpendicular to the head, just below the bow.)

On guitar, 12th fret (4th up from the sound hole) is my go to position. I don't mess around with the neck or below the sound hole. I sometimes do either an X-Y or a single mic there, depending upon the role of the instrument in the track (take a listen to the new Patricia Barber "Cole Porter Mix" to hear the Sanken CU-41's in X-Y on a Hauser guitar)

The Jay Hoggard recording was originally done for NPR's radio program, Jazz Alive!, at the Public Theatre.

My memory of that recording scheme is quite good. Why? I'm not sure.

It was a Neumann USM 69 in X-Y as a main pick-up, flanked by 2 U-87's, left and right.

The microphones were mixed on a Studer mixer to a Nagra IV-S (portable stereo recorder), no outside reverb, eq, etc. used.

The original LP release was on India Navagation (which I have). Has this been re-released on CD?

If I were recording this, today, I would probably not use a condenser microphone as my main pickup for vibraphone.

Experience has taught me to use ribbons or dynamics for most percussion of this type (I say MOST, because I would still use condenser omni's for percussion toys - B&K (DPA) 4007's, for example). Coles 4038's, RCA 77DX or RCA 44, or SM 57, even, for vibes, etc., these days. They tend to reproduce the tone and not the attack, or the strike, of the mallet to the instrument.

Edited May 22, 2008 by jim anderson

[jim anderson]

Speaking of interesting percussion, there's two solo albums that I did with Milford Graves on Tzadik, that you might like.

Don't have anything to add here, just catching up on this thread, but did want to say I love that Milford album. I haven't heard the second, but the first is a favorite. I've been playing for 20+ years and I can't wrap my head around much of what he's doing on that disc.

Both of those albums were tracked/performed live, recorded/mixed live, each in one afternoon.

Milford is amazing.

Edited May 22, 2008 by jim anderson

[paul secor]

Speaking of interesting percussion, there's two solo albums that I did with Milford Graves on Tzadik, that you might like.

Don't have anything to add here, just catching up on this thread, but did want to say I love that Milford album. I haven't heard the second, but the first is a favorite. I've been playing for 20+ years and I can't wrap my head around much of what he's doing on that disc.

Both of those albums were tracked/performed live, recorded/mixed live, each in one afternoon.

Milford is amazing.

I listened to Stories recently, and assumed that there was some overdubbing. I never bothered to read the (minimal) liner notes

carefully, because it says there (in capital letters): "ALL MUSIC RECORDED IN REAL TIME WITH NO OVERDUBBING". Hard to believe, and yes - amazing.

[jim anderson]

And you can imagine what it was like to be prepared for recording that session.

We never had any idea what he was going to play until just before the piece and if he might vocalize, etc.

The first album was the first time I'd used the Brauner microphones - VM-1.

It was what convinced me to purchase them. And shortly thereafter purchased 2 more.

Making it 2 matched pairs that I use to this day.

The Brauner is my vocal microphone of choice (Patricia Barber, etc.)

[paul secor]

So musicians aren't the only improvisers on jazz recordings.

[jim anderson]

Interesting point.

I like to improvise on the set-up (much to the dismay of the studio assistants), when I arrive at the studio.

I usually get my ideas when riding the subway to the studio or the final walk from the subway to the front door of the studio.

Generally, the improvisation is an improvement on the set-up I would have sent to the studio in advance.

Although, I usually have a preconceived notion of the sound of a project before I begin.

[Shawn]

Interesting point.

I like to improvise on the set-up (much to the dismay of the studio assistants), when I arrive at the studio.

I usually get my ideas when riding the subway to the studio or the final walk from the subway to the front door of the studio.

Generally, the improvisation is an improvement on the set-up I would have sent to the studio in advance.

Although, I usually have a preconceived notion of the sound of a project before I begin.

Thanks for sharing all these stories! Most of the recording projects I worked on in college were improvised...no other choice when you could only get 4 hour blocks of studio time! But the most interesting one was when my co-engineer and I decided to dispense with all "accepted" current mic techniques for drums...we had the guy play, walked around the room until we found the spot where it sounded best...then put two U87's on stands in a near coincident pattern, set levels and rolled tape. It ended up sounding great.

[jim anderson]

Actually, I should be clearer: I do improvise but I've also sent in a prepared set up and input list in advance of the session. The assistants would really go ballistic if I didn't give them some direction ahead of time. It's the tweaks that come to mind when I'm in transit.

I like to remember the John Carter sessions of the late 1980's, when I think of improvisation.

We recorded 4 albums for Gramavision and they were classics of their day.

Before a take, John would talk down the piece before it was to be recorded.

Sometimes, it might take 2 or 3 hours for him to clearly describe to his musicians his plan before he'd run the piece for recording. This was 'free music' but with great elements of structure. It all worked because the musicians knew where they were starting and where they were going when tape started rolling.

In the end there was always one take!

Once I had a clock rolling in the studio. After a while, the producer asked me what the time showing on the clock meant.

I said "That's the last time we heard music." The clock was showing something like 2 hours 45 minutes.

Talk about improvising! And structure.

Edited July 9, 2008 by jim anderson

[jim anderson]

By the way, if anyone likes to get in the fray:

http://www.popsci.com/entertainment-gaming...y-better?page=1

Here's the article:

Are Records Really Better?

The FYI experts tackle the question that plagues every audiophile

By Corey Binns Posted 07.03.2008 at 12:43 pm 15 Comments

Sorry, vinyl aficionados, but CDs most accurately capture the clarity of musical performances. If you look at the grooves of a standard long-play record, or LP, through a microscope, you’ll see that each is filled with what look like rolling hills. These are, in fact, an extremely close replication of the shape of the sound waves from the musician’s instrument. But because the needle that carves the groove is shaped slightly different than the needle that reads it, the LP will never sound exactly like the original performance. (Not to mention that changes in temperature and humidity warp vinyl over time.)

The mathematical data encoded on a CD, however, is a nearly exact representation of the original sound. Comparing an LP and a CD made from the same microphone signal, the LP’s groove must perfectly match the signal to sound close to CD-quality, which is almost impossible, says Stanley Lipshitz, who studies electro-acoustics and digital-signal processing in the Audio Research Group at the University of Waterloo in Canada.

Even so, some audiophiles claim to hear a natural sound, vaguely described as “musical warmth,” when listening to vinyl. What they’re hearing, Lipshitz says, is most likely the deficiencies of the record player. Sound waves from the speakers and the needle’s rise-and-fall passage over the grooves cause the LP to vibrate. The needle picks up these extra vibrations and adds them to the music, creating the “fullness” that’s associated with LPs. “Some people mistake this defect for a virtue,” Lipshitz says.

But when it comes to portable music, people stuff their iPods with tunes of far worse quality than either CDs or LPs. MP3s are compressed files that cut as much as 90 percent of the sound from the original recording, by using computer models of human hearing and removing subtle sounds that most of us don’t realize we’re missing. A compressed recording of a French horn, for example, might lack the slight reverberations from the concert hall.

Instead of filling his digital music player with thousands of songs of crummy sound quality, Grammy Award–winning producer Jim Anderson keeps his iPod stocked with just 55 songs in an uncompressed format, including jazz pianist Keith Jarrett’s epic live solo concerts in Germany. (Anderson prefers the lossless AIFF format, in which one minute of stereo audio occupies 10 megabytes.) “If I were to cut the CD down to an MP3, I’d be throwing out all the stuff in the room that makes the piano sound as full as it does,” says Anderson, who is also chair of the Clive Davis Department of Recorded Music at New York University. “I hear the piano exactly as it was at the concert.”

Edited July 9, 2008 by jim anderson

[Shawn]

What about the inadequacies of a 16-bit word length in capturing the "full spectrum"?

[AllenLowe]

I think it's a straw man argument: "CDs most accurately capture the clarity of musical performances"

who says that musical performances are of necessity "clear" ? the soundstage of life can be complex, ambient, can have frequency conflict, bad balance, et al, conflicting and uneven dynamics - the problem with digital is not just a problem of digital but of common isolation techniques - the placement of each instrument on its own and isolated track(s) creates, onces things are mixed, a strangely un-natural sum of the parts - everything is just too co-equal, even if the mix is intelligently done - add the lack of ambience in many digital recordings that is a function of either digital itself and/or the use of dead-sounding rooms (the idea is to add all acoustical qualities in the mix) and you have all the ingredients for a strange and cold multi-track stew -

and beyond that, what they are talking about in terms of analog fullness has NOTHING to do with a needle tracking on an lp - it has to do with what I would call aural depth of field, a different and fuller soundstage that is indeed warmer for it's slight distortion, and/or the sense that the sound is on the edge of distorting - I don't need an LP to proves this, I can hear it on a good 2 track tape machine, where no needle is encountering any grooves - this idea that it's all numbers and that all numbers are thus equal in fidelity has long been disproved - otherwise we'd be recording in 8 bit word lengths -

Edited July 9, 2008 by AllenLowe

[jim anderson]

Shawn,

The difference between 16 and 24 bit is dramatic, just as is the difference between 44.1kHz and 96kHz (and higher!).

I always try to record in the highest resolution possible.

I had an interesting thing happen when were mastering a project that had been recorded with the Sonoma system.

Here's a recording that's been made with DSD (2.8 something million times per second) and I had also made a simultaneous analogue back-up (1/2" tape, 15ips, Dolby SR). We had been listening to the DSD for most of the morning and mastering engineer, Paul Stubblebine, said to me: "Let's check the analogue." After a couple of seconds he looked at me and said: "What do you think?"

I said: "The digital sounds like a really good recording and the analogue sounds like someone playing music."

He agreed.

On the SACD release, the stereo layer is from the tape and the surround is from the Sonoma.

[Bluerein]

Now wouldn't it be "interesting" to know which session this is? Please let us know!!!

[clarke68]

On the SACD release, the stereo layer is from the tape and the surround is from the Sonoma.

Now wouldn't it be "interesting" to know which session this is? Please let us know!!!

Seriously! If you're going to drop a factoid like that, it's no fun/fair if you don't let us know what recording it is...I promise, I'll buy it!

[AllenLowe]

interesting, and it confirms that the best recording medium is THICK analog tape (1/2 inch or larger) at 15 ips - even best is no noise reduction, though Dolby SR is quite good - I don't like DBX, which was in common use in the 1980s when I started recording-

[Bluerein]

Still eagerly awaiting Jim's answer...........

[randissimo]

How about "Conversations With Jim Alfredson" ?

[jim anderson]

Hi. Sorry for the delay. I've been in the studio working on a couple of projects.

To comment on Allen's note. I'd actually say that Dolby A was ubiquitous, over DBX.

The Dolby system was first on the market and DBX never really got a foothold (at least it was that way in New York). That's not to say it wasn't used. I can only think of one project where I used it on the multitrack (Night Ark "Moments" for RCA/Novus - I engineered and David Baker produced). If I remember, we used the Sony F1 digital recording system for the master. The memory's a little foggy, here, (it was 1988) because we may have used the Dolby SR for the 2 track master (Dolby SR had just been introduced and Dave and I were interested in giving it a go. We couldn't get enough SR cards for the 24 track - the F1 might have been the back-up to the SR) Mastering was by Bob Ludwig.

DBX was a good system, if you could maintain your tape machines, properly. Frankly, this could be said for any outboard noise reduction system. We used it at NPR in the 70's as well as Dolby A.

The new Patricia Barber album, "The Cole Porter Mix," was recorded 24/96 in ProTools and mixed to 24/96 as well as 1/2" Dolby SR. I've taken to making sure we have an analogue back-up for her projects, since her recordings generally come out in 5 different formats (Redbook CD, XR-CD, SACD, 33 vinyl, 45 vinyl) and those extra formats generally like using the analogue for their mastering. For my use, I make the analogue transfer back to 24/96 at the mixing session. The mastering engineer chose the transfer to digital of the analogue over the 24/96 original digital file. The analogue transfer felt 'grounded' and was the version of choice.

The recording in question (that you've all been waiting for) was one of a series that I've made for FIM of original Chinese instruments. In fact, we've used the analogue back-up for the stereo of all the releases (along with the 1/2" Dolby SR other formats have also included 1" 2 track for the stereo) along with the digital multi-channel layer.

http://www.fimpression.com/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryID=10

Although, thinking back, you'd be surprised how many 2 track masters are 1/4" and not 1/2".

Best,

Jim

[Chuck Nessa]

interesting, and it confirms that the best recording medium is THICK analog tape (1/2 inch or larger) at 15 ips - even best is no noise reduction, though Dolby SR is quite good - I don't like DBX, which was in common use in the 1980s when I started recording-

THICK is not the right word. Wide is what you must mean. DBX was everywhere starting in the '70s 'cause it was cheaper than Dolby. I've been working with some old DBX tapes recently and they sound great if you have the right machine.

[jim anderson]

Not to turn this into an 'old fart remembers' site, but I attended an AES meeting in Washington DC, in 1975, where dbx demonstrated their dbx Disc, a vinyl dbx encoded disc, for audio engineers from the area. At the time, it was an impressive demonstration of what was possible on a vinyl disc. Needless to say, it didn't catch on.

[Chuck Nessa]

Hello old fart.