etherbored Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 hyper-magnum sound and increased sensitivity doesn't necessarily equate to louder sounding recordings... how did we get from there to here? -e- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolff Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 (edited) hyper-magnum sound and increased sensitivity doesn't necessarily equate to louder sounding recordings... how did we get from there to here? -e- We did not. I was just curious if Venus and their hyper-magnum addressed lack of dynamic range. The Venus' may be louder, but they seem to have decent dynamic range, also. I have no idea what hyper-magnum means, if anything. Edited December 13, 2004 by wolff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeweil Posted December 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 I have no idea what hyper-magnum means, if anything. I'd be grateful for an explanation, too. Does it involve compression or is the basic volume level raised or .... ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeweil Posted December 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 The mics on the Miles records were about as close to the drums, then, as they are today. Drummers play differently now, than they did back then in the studio. Try to get a drummer to play in the proper dynamic (or any musician in the group, for that matter) of the group that they're in. It's next to impossible. Mostly it's because these groups recording today are only brought together for the sake of a recording and aren't bands that tour and play together extensively. It's my observation. Most of the records from the 50's and the 60's the drummers are tippin'. JA I listened to several 1950's recordings with this in mind, and, e.g. on the first Shorty Roger & his Giants session from 1954, Shelly Manne does not sound like he's just tippin'. They may have been playing softer on many a session, but tippin'? When I hear Jimmy Cobb on some Miles sessions, I would agree, and it was reported he and Paul Chambers were getting edgy and "wanted to cook on something". From my personal experience it has a lot to do with the playing technique and drum heads and sticks you use. And this has changed a lot since then. Many "modern" drum sets do not sound as well when played softly. But with calfskin heads and thinner gauge sticks, that's a totally different story. And haven't the microphones changed? It sounds to me as these play a part in the isolation accoreding to their characteristics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 (edited) I think the main problem, as I mentioned, is that most contemporary recordings engage in acoustic modeling - meaning the re-creation of an acoustic environment through means of digital effect (ie digital reverb); I like digital reverbs, but if you don't hear the room you get what we have typically today, not just in rock but in most jazz - something digitally manipulated at the source (direct to digital miking) and than digitally manipulated in the mix - digital reverb. Some digital reverbs are extremely good; the problem is when you are using them to replace and than replicate natural acoustics - Edited December 13, 2004 by AllenLowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 hyper-magnum sound and increased sensitivity doesn't necessarily equate to louder sounding recordings... how did we get from there to here? -e- Maybe I'm mis-understanding the term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etherbored Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted December 20, 2004 Maybe I'm mis-understanding the term. -- i'm unsure myself now... all i know is jim a's mention of venus winning the volume war drew me in. then the increased dynamic range of their recordings was brought up. so i'm simply trying to tether the two together... *is* there a correlation? -e- ps: was listening to this today when i realized it was recorded at avatar by jim... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolff Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 Maybe I'm mis-understanding the term. -- i'm unsure myself now... all i know is jim a's mention of venus winning the volume war drew me in. then the increased dynamic range of their recordings was brought up. so i'm simply trying to tether the two together... *is* there a correlation? -e- Not that I know of. I just mentioned that the Venus I have seemed to have decent dynamic range, though it may have high volume, also. Which is okay by me. I do not particularly like recordings with lousy dynamic range that also have the volume way up there. I will not mention the popular label that specializes in this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJ Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 I only have one Venus recording, Bill Charlap Trio's S'WONDERFUL and it's....well, wonderful. Including the recording, the amount of sonic detail is almost too much to be believed. All kinds of stuff like you can hear Charlap's pedal work... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etherbored Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 I only have one Venus recording, Bill Charlap Trio's S'WONDERFUL and it's....well, wonderful. Including the recording, the amount of sonic detail is almost too much to be believed. All kinds of stuff like you can hear Charlap's pedal work... one of the single finest straightahead trio records (along with the cure)i've ever heard, bar *none*. i love it so much own 4 seperate issues. , -e- ps:according to some friends who work for toshiba japan, 'hyper-magnum' sound is nothing more than marketing copy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim anderson Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Don't quote me, but I might have to agree. Did anyone have a chance to hear the live 13 hour NPR 5.1 broadcast on New Years Eve? In New York, we celebrated the new year with Cyrus Chestnut, Frank Morgan and Marcus Printup. JA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Stream Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 I was just involved in a real straight, no-frills recording done at a small home studio. Sounded great. Natural. The guy has great mics a good room and just a plate reverb. The final mix sounded wonderful. After mastering however, it sounded like a bad 80's Springsteen recording. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim anderson Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 SS, Any idea what went wrong? Did you attend the mastering session or have a chance to hear a reference? JA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Stream Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 (edited) SS, Any idea what went wrong? Did you attend the mastering session or have a chance to hear a reference? JA Yes Jim, I heard a reference. He seemed to have basically jacked up the highs to give it that usual "shimmer" you hear in things these days. It was so pronounced, on one song in particular the highhat had become the dominate voice! This mastering was done locally and it seems to have given a "local" result. The recording is now being sent to California to be mastered by Joe Gastwirt. Wondered who you liked to use Jim? Jim, how important is mastering to a well done recording? Seems like an opportunity to have the recording altered in a way you don't want. I've heard of people skipping mastering completely. Even one guy I know did this and got an "CD of the Month"-type award from an audio magazine. Edited January 10, 2005 by Soul Stream Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Did anyone have a chance to hear the live 13 hour NPR 5.1 broadcast on New Years Eve? Why, yes. As a matter of fact, I did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim anderson Posted January 11, 2005 Report Share Posted January 11, 2005 (edited) Mastering is an integral part of the recording process. Or should we say the final part of the recording process? It is the last chance to put a few things right: level, from track to track, a general eq, which can put a nice sheen or gloss on the mix or secure the bottom end, a bit of compression to tighten up the mix, sequence, pacing, sometimes edit, etc. i like to work with a few people in new york, allan tucker at foothill digital, alan silverman at arf!digital, greg calbi at sterling sound, bob ludwig at gateway mastering, scott hull at hit factory, paul stubblebine in san francisco they're people that i don't have to monitor and, if i can, i like to be there, just because i like to listen to them work. We were live from Dizzy's Coca-Cola at the new Jazz at Lincoln Center. The mix was a live 5.1 surround mix and the stereo mix, which was heard by most of the listeners, was derived from the Neural Audio 5525 downmix. We were unable to monitor the stereo mix and concentrated on the surround. Edited January 11, 2005 by jim anderson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Posted January 11, 2005 Report Share Posted January 11, 2005 (edited) If you're not familiar with the processor Jim mentioned, you're not alone. It isn't available to the public yet (availability is expected within 18 months, if memory serves). But, compared with the other surround matrices available (SRS, Dolby, etc.) it is fairly impressive. Occasionally, some stuff does still show up in surprizing places on playback, but overall it seems to work fairly well. It's also compatible with currently available matrix decoders. Edited January 11, 2005 by Gerry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkaven Posted January 27, 2005 Report Share Posted January 27, 2005 That leakage is unobtainable, for the most part, due to the way recordings are made, these days, and the way bands perform. Part of the problem is that everybody wants to fix everything and that's the reason for the lack of leakage. Everyone's in a different booth, or room, scattered around the studio. Many times, I can sense a lack of concentration or commitment in a track because, collectively, it's known that we can go in and replace the bass, for example (not to pick on bass players...well, why not pick on bass players?), or get a better version of the head from the horns. So that chance at natural leakage is long gone. I can think of quite a few Blue Note albums that have some major clams in them and they're, sometimes, my favorite part of the track. I was working on a vocalist project over the summer and I remarked to the assistant (as I was making a fix on the protools) "No one makes mistakes anymore. Everything's 'perfect'." I just caught up to this forum since it moved from the Blue Note board. I'm glad to see Jim is still participating. Jim I think what you say is so true. The isolation is a mere technical convenience without a musical purpose, and in most cases, it sucks the life out of the music. Our cats spend night after night standing next to each other on the bandstand making great music. Why would I want to change that when I take them into a studio? Putting musicians into isolation booths reminds me of 1950s behavioral psych experiments. People play as though they knew they could do it again. The real drama comes partly from knowing the musician is vulnerable and risking it all. Our current "big vocal record" was recorded by Baker for me at Avatar A. Singer plus octet. A dozen ribbon mikes and the art of the null plane. All full band takes, mixed live to stereo by Baker. Mixing on the Neve, he looked like he was conducting an orchestra himself, and that's how I'll remember him. Luke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGUD missile Posted January 27, 2005 Report Share Posted January 27, 2005 That leakage is unobtainable, for the most part, due to the way recordings are made, these days, and the way bands perform. Part of the problem is that everybody wants to fix everything and that's the reason for the lack of leakage. Everyone's in a different booth, or room, scattered around the studio. Many times, I can sense a lack of concentration or commitment in a track because, collectively, it's known that we can go in and replace the bass, for example (not to pick on bass players...well, why not pick on bass players?), or get a better version of the head from the horns. So that chance at natural leakage is long gone. I can think of quite a few Blue Note albums that have some major clams in them and they're, sometimes, my favorite part of the track. I was working on a vocalist project over the summer and I remarked to the assistant (as I was making a fix on the protools) "No one makes mistakes anymore. Everything's 'perfect'." I just caught up to this forum since it moved from the Blue Note board. I'm glad to see Jim is still participating. Jim I think what you say is so true. The isolation is a mere technical convenience without a musical purpose, and in most cases, it sucks the life out of the music. Our cats spend night after night standing next to each other on the bandstand making great music. Why would I want to change that when I take them into a studio? Putting musicians into isolation booths reminds me of 1950s behavioral psych experiments. People play as though they knew they could do it again. The real drama comes partly from knowing the musician is vulnerable and risking it all. Our current "big vocal record" was recorded by Baker for me at Avatar A. Singer plus octet. A dozen ribbon mikes and the art of the null plane. All full band takes, mixed live to stereo by Baker. Mixing on the Neve, he looked like he was conducting an orchestra himself, and that's how I'll remember him. Luke All the above is the downside of the improvements in recording techonology over the years since multi track regarding began in the 60s. The isolation , overdubbing, and all the other innovations have created a very lackadaisical attituted among studio musicians of the later generations. Since they KNOW they can fix the flubs, the "hands" come up every few bars for a fix. It's not that they CAN'T play it right through ..they know they dont have to anymore, hence the concentration factor is gone. When I recorded my big band CD in 2004 I did it basically live, and I made it a point to make sure to let all involved know we were gonna go for complete takes ( or at the most and intercut pickup like the old "live to 2 track " days. The band really got into it, and most everything was done in two or three takes ( in some cases ,a single take and a pickup ). The overall preformance was excellent, and the energy feel generated by the process was very noticable. ( note: we did use multi-track ProTools, but there was VERY little cosmetic surgery necessary prior to mixing ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolff Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 Paging Jim Anderson!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 Paging Jim Anderson!! Yes? Oh wait... you said "Anderson". My bad... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim anderson Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 yes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rostasi Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 (edited) ? Edited June 20, 2005 by rostasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim anderson Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 (edited) betty, bud and kathy are all well thanks for asking ja Edited June 20, 2005 by jim anderson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolff Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 Are you back for real, or just passing through? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.