Conversations with Jim Anderson

[Rooster_Ties]

First, a BIG thank-you to Jim (A.) for participating in this wonderful thread!! I'm outgunned with musical/recording discussions this technical. And my cheap stereo equipment (and not just relatively cheap, but relatively "cheap" cheap ---> $150 executive bookshelf CD systems by Panasonic, Aiwa, etc...), always means I always have less of a frame of reference for discussions that are of an audiophile nature.

That said, I wanted to say how much I'm enjoying reading a thread like this (for a change) - where audio considerations are very "real" in nature (even if they are somewhat technical) -- so much so, that even I can relate to them.

The one topic that's just come up here, which I feel strongly enough to chime in on, is the issue of "isolation". I suppose, to a large degree, it's used in most modern studio recordings these days. But often, it seems that this is the very thing that can kill the enjoyment for the listener, and even impact the quality of studio performances.

Take a recording like McCoy Tyner's "New York Reunion" (Chesky, 1991). I'm not trying to pick on it in particular, nor am I picking on any of the technical folks that worked on it. It is but one of a thousand of examples of a perfectly good studio recording that simply sounds too "good" – at least to my ears. When I listen to this release (and those like it), the sound is so pristine -- so perfect -- that it really is almost distracting. I can't imagine a performance space that sounds anywhere near what my ears hear. Every instrument is perfectly balanced, 100% of the time, and everything is just too damn perfect.

Another example, again not to pick on it in particular (cuz there are many more examples like it), is the Woody Shaw Mosaic (especially the large-ensemble stuff). Every instrument sounds like it was recorded in its own separate space -- to even more of an extreme than the previous McCoy Tyner example.

Do the musicians in most recording situations where extreme isolation is employed, even have real sight lines to each other?? Much of what makes a jazz group work, is the almost telepathic nature of the interplay of the musicians -- except I imagine quite a bit of that "telepathy" is a product of visual cues (even those not overtly communicated). Think of a soloist, eyes probably closed, and those in support roles who rise and fall with the soloist (in intensity) -- yes, of course based on what they're ears tell them -- but also (I would have to think), based on their eyes observe as well.

How to turn my rambling post into a question... Well, I guess I would be curious to hear from Jim and the other engineers here -- and from musicians too, who have done studio recordings -- how they compensate for these issues, particularly "isolation" booths, or similar situations.

Edited December 6, 2004 by Rooster_Ties

[Jim Alfredson]

Our record was recorded with everyone in the same room, but with the Leslie and guitar amp separated from the drums and each other. That way we had the benefit of isolation, but we were still together.

For our next record, we'll be in the same room. I really like the sound I'm getting.

[Bluerein]

Maybe you should ask Jim to record you. I'm sure he will do it for a reasonable price!!!!!!!!

[mikeweil]

How to turn my rambling post into a question... Well, I guess I would be curious to hear from Jim and the other engineers here -- and from musicians too, who have done studio recordings -- how they compensate for these issues, particularly "isolation" booths, or similar situations.

Yeah, that's what interests me, too - on a late 1950's to early 1960's recording I can hear some of the room ambience - Jimmy Cobb or PhillyJoe Jones in the big Columbia studio, Shelly Manne in the Contemporary back room - which I don't hear anymore. What I hear is some artificial room. Are they using different mikes or isolating better?

[Jim Alfredson]

Drums are usually recorded in a fairly large room and the engineer will usually set up room mics and add a little of that in to give the drums a sense of space. As far as adding something like that to the other isolated instruments, I guess it has to be done artificially.

Like I said our last record was done with everybody in the same room, but the amps (Leslie and guitar) separated from each other and the drums. With the exception of the tracks with saxophone... Ron was in the room with us as well, so the drums and the sax mic were bleeding together a bit.

So for the most part, we had isolation and were able to replace solos, but we didn't do that with one possible exception. I think I may have replayed a couple bars of my solo in one tune and I think Joe may have done the same. That was about it. We mainly just played, recorded a bunch of takes, and took the best take. Or spliced two takes together (if tempos matched).

I really want to record this next record with everything in the same room. I think it's sounding really good and natural. Overdubs be damned. If we fuck up, we'll record another take. Want another shot at the solo? We'll record another take. We may splice two or three takes together, but it'll be a live performance.

And I'd love to have Jim Anderson engineer our record, but I doubt we can afford him!

[Bluerein]

maybe the Organissimo board crowd can support this and donate and get the cd in return......

[mikeweil]

Asking him is free of charge, I'm certain ...

[michel devos]

 

I really want to record this next record with everything in the same room. 

A large part of the recording jobs I do are made either during live performances with one rehearsal session before the concert takes place, or with the group playing in front of an empty hall, just as if there were an audience listening...

Now the drawbacks of this method are not small : less control over the sound as compared against studio environment, less freedom in reconstructing a plausible sound stage, but you really do not need this, since your takes are supposed to be right immediately, at least regarding the acoustical environment.

I much prefer this kind of arrangement since , in my view , it reproduces more faithfully the real event, the sound of a band, or player as in concert.Here, leakage is not a downside ,but a part of reality which helps create the illusion of the real thing.

Of course, that makes is nastier to move the solists or sections of the orchestra across the sound stage, since all these parametyers are already included in the signals taken by the microphones and there is less room for "postproduction" afterward.It also means you have to be more carefull, and use more time to obtain the right soundstage from the start, placing physically the mikes and making the right balance on the spot.

Not everybody agrees with this method and one of famous opponent was Glenn Gould himself, firmly believing in a total reconstruction of all the components of the musical event into a specific finished product which was not supposed to picture a live concert session (which he hated...)For more details about this, please check "Music and Mind" by Geoffrey Payzant , along with articles by John Culshaw and Goddard Lieberson in Bruno Monsaingeon book 'Glenn Gould.

I think he himself developed his views in an article for a Hi Fi magazine, but I can't find the reference right now.

I would be delighted to read your reactions

[DrJ]

Not to derail the current discussion, but just wanted to chime in about something: I have been enjoying Ernie Watts' CLASSIC MOODS (JVC) - Watts, Mulgrew Miller, George Mraz, and Jimmy Cobb - and noted last night Jim Anderson did the recording. Just wanted to say "thanks," this is without a doubt one of the best-sounding recent jazz CDs in my collection. It's neither overly polished nor too grainy and rough, just sounds - well, balanced. Mulgrew Miller's piano sound in particular has never sounded this refined and breathtaking.

I'd simply be interested to know if you have any recollection of this session Jim and if you have any particular "secrets" to share with how you got it to sound that good!

Edited December 7, 2004 by DrJ

[jim anderson]

I like all the Ernie Watts sessions that I was fortunate to work on. A lot of credit, of course, goes to Ernie and much has to go to his producer Akira Taguchi, who is one of the great unsung audiophiles in our world. He loves audio quality and lets me do anything I can or want to do to go for great sound. All of the sessions for JVC were live to stereo, with no back-up. So, it's the old what you hear is what we did. Also, the mastering on those projects is exceptional. Alan Yoshida does terriffic work and lets all the sound come out.

Those sessions were at Clinton Recording and everyone was in the large room

(If you want to take a look at the room, here's their link: http://clintonrecording.com/studios.html)

with a little space between the musicians to help the separation.

Rhythm section was against the wall and Ernie was in the middle of the room facing them. In fact, the piano is in the same spot in their photo as it was for the session.

I've listened to Ernie warm up and he starts with Coltrane's Giant Steps solo in the original key and then plays it again going through the circle of fifths. What an amazing talent!

The other thing I wanted to point out, these 'isolation booths' really aren't.

They're separation rooms. Usually, there's not enough separation for complete isolation.

One of the very few can be found in studio A at Clinton, it's that rectangular window to the right of the patio doors, leading into their large booth. Access to that booth is from the hallway across from the control room. There you have isolation!

Taguchi likes Sanken microphones and that's what we used on Ernie and Mulgrew. I happen to have quite a few of them. Also, the master of that recording is ANALOGUE! 1/2" at 30ips, no noise reduction (NNR). I feel that's a lot of the sound, too.

By the way, many times, I'm a gun for hire and always hate to hear that I'm too expensive!

It never hurts to ask.

I'm off to LA to record with Terry Gibbs, tomorrow.

TTYL

All the best

JA

[SGUD missile]

Hi Jim:

Tell Terry I said Hi ..

Too bad the 52nd St /Bwy CD didn't make the Grammy cut ..

Phil Kelly

[DrJ]

Jim, thanks so much for the info about the CLASSIC MOODS session:

Also, the master of that recording is ANALOGUE! 1/2" at 30ips, no noise reduction (NNR). I feel that's a lot of the sound, too.

I suspect you're right about this, there is a great deal of warmth in this recording, in addition to the amazing clarity. Thanks again!

[jim anderson]

Phil,

I'll give Terry your best.

We're out here in Burbank at O'Henry Studios with Terry, Joey DeFrancesco (organ), Eric Alexander (Tenor), Dan Faehnle (guitar), Ray Armando (conga), Jerry Gibbs (drums).

The recording will be with a live audience in the studio and they'll be arriving in about 25 minutes.

If you're in the neighborhood this weekend, come on by!

Edited December 12, 2004 by jim anderson

[jim anderson]

I do want to say that I've never been a fan of the Chesky recordings.

To me, they always get one thing right, but the overall effect never knocks me out.

The sound that they get may be true to what it is in the recording room (or church, etc.), but I always feel that I want to run out of the studio and into the control room and turn a couple of knobs.

I'm familiar with their techniques and it's just a matter of taste.

Any takers?

JA

[wolff]

Hello, Jim. I really enjoy your posts.

Enjoy the Mabern: Don't Know Why title you did for Venus. Hard to put a finger on what makes this recording/sound/music stand out for me. It sounds a bit like some of the original Contemporary Records titles I have. Very, very natural musicality and not much distortion.

Have you done other Venus titles?

Edited December 12, 2004 by wolff

[jim anderson]

I have done quite a few Venus titles, Jay Leonhardt, Eddie Harris, One for All and some that I've never received copies, so I don't know the titles.

I do have a little problem with the 'hyper magnum' sound.

If I put on some cd's in rotation on the player and have a Venus in the pile, I have to jump to turn down the volume control.

I feel that they go a little to far in the 'volume wars'.

Has anyone else noticed that?

JA

[Jim Alfredson]

Joey Calderazzo on organ? That's interesting.

[jim anderson]

Doi!

Thanks.

I'll fix that!!

ja

Edited December 12, 2004 by jim anderson

[etherbored]

Has anyone else noticed that?

yes jim, i positively have.

i've collected venus on disc from almost the beginning and noticed the increased sensitivity compared to what i thought was pretty dull digital masters i was listening to at the time...

can you tell us more about what you know of said hyper-magnum sound?

regards,

-e-

[AllenLowe]

I'm very late to this but want to add a few observations based on what I've read (and I have not read all the posts so pardon me if anything I add is redundant). I've recorded myself on a few occassions, and I've come to prefer multitrack without isolation - musicians spread in a semi-circle, 2 or three mikes on the drums, close miked horns, no overdubbing. What I've found is that by doing this (using anywhere from 4-8 tracks) you get a very natural sounding "live" recording but can still tweak the levels. I've done this successfully, particularly on something I recorded for Music and Arts with a quartet (myself on tenor, Roswell Rudd on trombone, Jeff Fuller bass and Ray Kaczynski, drums). Roswell told me recently that I captured his sound better than on any other recording he's made, on this. We recorded through a Tascam mixer to a Fostex 8 track, dolby C - RCA 77 on tenor, and some kind of Beyer ribbon on trombone, no compression whatsoever. The reason so many contemporary recordings sound so artifical is the complete isolation, the fact that, in reality, all acoustics are digitally modelled during the mixdown. Another key, of course, is a good souding room, some reverberation but not boomy, and not dead either. Just my experience... I should also mention that I had one recording of my group done by the late great David Baker, one of Jim's colleagues, and I learned a lot by watching him -

Edited December 12, 2004 by AllenLowe

[wolff]

I do have a little problem with the 'hyper magnum' sound.

If I put on some cd's in rotation on the player and have a Venus in the pile, I have to jump to turn down the volume control.

Yes, I do notice it a bit. No distraction for me, though. I really like the bigger, fuller sound with more decay of the piano on the Mabern. Seems more realistic than what I'm used to hearing. It's quite a relief, acually. Such a big, dynamic instrument that gets the short end of the stick in many recordings.

The detail and music that comes across in the quiet spots is very nice, also.

[jim anderson]

Eric Alexander and I were talking about hyper-magnum sound on the trip to the studio from LAX. He said that he liked hyper-magnum because he felt that when he's playing at a quiet volume, it allows a lot of his expression to come through. He felt that it sounds best on ballads.

ja

[Son-of-a-Weizen]

One for All

Great, that 'No Problem' disc sounds fantastic! They don't come much better than 'Our Father Who Art Blaky'! Any additional One for All sessions in the pipeline? Did you have a hand in the latest Mabern Trio ("Fantasy") release (last month?)?

Edited December 13, 2004 by Son-of-a-Weizen

[wolff]

... hyper-magnum sound he felt that when he's playing at a quiet volume, it allows a lot of his expression to come through....

Exactly. Very intimate. I'm pulled into the music ina natural way.

Does hyper-magnum have anything to do with increased dynamic range??

[Jim Alfredson]

... hyper-magnum sound  he felt that when he's playing at a quiet volume, it allows a lot of his expression to come through....

Exactly. Very intimate. I'm pulled into the music ina natural way.

Does hyper-magnum have anything to do with increased dynamic range??

Records these days seem to have "decreased" dynamic range, even though CDs have huge dynamic possibilities.

Rock CDs are the worst. Everyone is trying to 'out-loud' the competition. But I've noticed some jazz recordings suffering from this as well. Compression is the most over-used effect in modern recording, in my opinion.