ncdrawl, that was fantastic! I have a computer-only setup, so I just downloaded it, put it on the server and played it. Really, really good sound. Congrats on your great work!

Edit: Oh, and thanks for posting the sample. Wish all my old jazz sounded this good.

The file wouldn't load on my computer, ncdrawl. I suspect it has to do with this Vista 64bit. I'd like you hear your work.

Well, I must admit to having to report an event that's become an audiophile cliche . When I first started playing the song, I actually got a chill from it. Now I'm an old objectivist type and not generally prone to these audiophile-type events, but it really did happen! This was not because of some dramatic or flashy aspect of the sound, but because it just sounded much more real than I expected. I know, I know, I should become an audio reviewer and start raving about "danceable cables" and such .

I'm not familiar with microphone techniques or recording, but I am an EE mostly interested in amplifier design. I'll check out the pages on Blumlein. Whatever the technique, it seems to work out very well.

Quote:
I think that audiophile types would be doing themselves a favor to learn about recording theory and application...it would help understand the mechanics behind what they are or are not hearing..

So do I but the problem is recording companies don't tell us much, ( apart from Windham Hill whose music was yuk & a few others) if anything about how they do things.
If they did we might be able to learn more so your sample NC is very much appreciated. Thanks.

Quote:
I was first turned on to blumlein via Jan-Erik Persson (the lead engineer of Opus 3 Records) and Kavi Alexander(waterlily acoustics head honcho and good friend of mine), I tried it, havent used anything else(well, other than jecklin disc) since.

+1 for me. Downloading the file now.

I am a huge fan of unmixed stereo recordings. I'm not sure what mic technique Todd Garfinkle uses, but add MA Recordings to the list.

Thanks, ncdrawl!

Opus3 has some of the best recordings I have ever heard; I have quite a few of their LPs and Cds both.

Unfortunately, only a small sample of their stuff seems to be available through their current distributor in the US.

FLACs would be great! Thanks again for these.

I'd like to broaden this discussion to something that relates more I suspect to microphone placement than how they are arrayed in relation to each other or how many and what type are used. Time and time again recordings are ruined for me by worse than close mike techniques. Placing mikes too close to musicians can dump you into their laps which isn't where I want to be. Last night I was listening to a Philippe Entremont recording of Ravel piano pieces and found myself with my head INSIDE the damned piano and the piano sounded as if it was 25 feet wide with a very, very loud mechanism ...ARGH! Why the hell to recording engineers do that kind of thing?
Lord help us if they start repeating such idiocy in surround.

Quote:
close miking should not be used for classical music. This is just my opinion of course, but I believe that, in general, the sound of the room/ambience is just as important as the ensemble with regards to this type of music (and also jazz).

NC, I get where your coming from, but

Quote:
close miking should not be used for classical music. This is just my opinion of course, but I believe that, in general, the sound of the room/ambience is just as important as the ensemble with regards to this type of music(and also jazz). The sense of space/depth is crucial..

Yes indeed, and not just any old sense of space. Chamber works just don't work in large spaces as they were never written with them in mind. I've spoken with string quartet players who tell me that the huge spaces they're asked to perform in force them to play louder than they would like to with the result the tonal richness is lost in an attempt to please a larger number of paying customers. There are a few exceptions, one of which is the new Dame Elizabeth Murdock Hall in Melbourne which seats thousands but through careful acoustic design allows small groups to play as if they're actually in a chamber sized room. This is done without any artificial sound re-enforcement either and is a triumph of acoustic architecture.
On other hand classical recording went through a nasty period, often at the hands of Deutsche Grammophon, of recording symphony orchestras in over damped studio spaces. No amount of clever mike technique could ever cure those sterile disasters.

Quote:
he proceeded to go on and brag about a debussy piano piece he had recorded for a label(one of the majors) in which he had over 900 edits! I was thinking oh my sweet lord..

One aspect of high end systems I don't appreciate, and I include mine, is to make those damned edits noticeable. Some of them on recent recordings stand out like ( if you'll excuse an Australian expression) dogs balls.

Quote:
Good labels-- Tacet, Waterlily, Opus 3, Polyhymnia, Alia Vox, MA Recordings...some Naxos(though the quality is here or there as they do not have a house producer, varies with the artist) Dabringhaus und Grimm, ECM...

Similar short list to mine but I have a real problem with Naxos. You don't know until you get a recording home & play it how well or badly it's been recorded. Their piano recordings I've found run the gamut from brilliant to absolutely crappy & most reviewers can't be trusted to evaluate them accurately.

Quote:
I'd like to broaden this discussion to something that relates more I suspect to microphone placement than how they are arrayed in relation to each other or how many and what type are used. Time and time again recordings are ruined for me by worse than close mike techniques. Placing mikes too close to musicians can dump you into their laps which isn't where I want to be. Last night I was listening to a Philippe Entremont recording of Ravel piano pieces and found myself with my head INSIDE the damned piano and the piano sounded as if it was 25 feet wide with a very, very loud mechanism ...ARGH! Why the hell to recording engineers do that kind of thing?
Lord help us if they start repeating such idiocy in surround.

In the case of numerous microphone "techniques" the number of microphones used, their pick up patterns and their specific placement is what defines the method. You could not truly implement the Blumlein method with spaced omni-directional microphones any more than you would typically choose to closely mic a vocalist using a microphone with an omni-directional pattern - at least not nowdays.

I suspect most audiophiles assume all recordings should be made with the simplest techniques and the lowest number of microphones possible despite the complications of such decisions. To gain some perspective on why decisions are made regarding microphones you might want to return to JA's discussions regarding his "Attention Screen" recording session. The artists/producer/ enginer have artistic freedom to capture what they feel is the most expressive quality of a performance. That it won't suit everyone is practically a given in toady's market. However, just as with playback, recording choices are a matter of trade offs and deciding which trade off is acceptable for which benefit incurred. There are quite a few listeners who do prefer to be sat down in the laps of the performers.

Using your Ravel example, JSB, where would you have placed the microphone(s) had your desire been to interpret exactly what the performer was hearing?

That did download, ncdrawl. Thanks.

Quote:
close miking should not be used for classical music. This is just my opinion of course, but I believe that, in general, the sound of the room/ambience is just as important as the ensemble with regards to this type of music(and also jazz). The sense of space/depth is crucial..

I'd have to disagree with your main gambit. Placing a microphone close to a source is a decision and it reflects a choice made by someone (or a few someones) along the way from conception of the project to finalized product. Surely you understand the "why" of closely positioning a microphone even in a "classical" selection. Your response reads as if there is only one microphone pattern available to a producer/engineer who cares to include room sound. Your Blumlein positioning is great for a strong central image with a narrowed soundstage but not so great for a wide perspective soundfield. While the Blumlein configuration minimizes phase issues it is the careful manipulation of those phase differences that often contribute to our perception of depth. Those are choices that should be made by those in charge of the recording process to best reflect what will serve the strengths of the performance and from to reflect from whose perspective will the recording be made.

Your response reads as if there is only one solution to a recording. I realize this is only your opinion you are expressing but I also realize many audiophiles expect what they cannot have. In general low noise and extreme detail are the province of a closely positioned microphone. Are these not qualities many audiophiles prize as proof of a high quality system or recording? Is the hyper-detail of a microphone placed centimeters away from a full throated vocalist often times over done? Of course it is but these are the decisions that are made and one disadvantage/advantage trades off against the other. The recording that lacks hyper-detail will be tossed in the not-so-good-sounding pile by the listener who prizes the very qualities the producer has eschewed.

My studio experience is from long ago but I seem to remember the concept of microphones and placement being one that is analogous to a phgotographer's bag of tricks or a fisherman's bag of lures or any number of pass times/occupations that eat up tremendous amounts of money and thought only to lead to questionable levels of success. How many times have you seen a budding photographer who doesn't understand film speed and f-stops? Every frame is taken with an infinite depth of field, every frame looks just like the rest. If you limit yourself to a few microphones, you are the photographer who chooses to only carry one lens and a fixed height tripod. While a careful selection of recording venues can get you by for a select portion of your recordings, like the photograph that lacks definition at the edges or color abstractions within the frame, so too will your recordings have deficiencies that will be apparent to someone who listens with a critical ear. If you don't know how to frame the picture with your microphones, and you rely on the equivalent to one lens, one tripod height, one filter or one technique to the exclusion of all others, then you risk a resume of all too alike products. Some what like eating cornflakes for all three meals everyday of the week.

Edits are not IMO the horrible vices some audiophiles make them out to be. A reliance on edits is, like any other reliance on one thing, a bad choice. Unfortunately, edits are the way the industry operates today. Unless you are independent of all commercial obligations, you have to get work to provide the income which will enable you to make better recordings on your own time.

Quote:
its a preference thing, I know..but close miking is not desireable to me. the room is very important. without the room sound, some distance, there is no depth.

Plus..the most important part of this thing.

sound needs space to mature and develop in. a close miked sound is not a mature one.

Some would say you simply lack the tools to make the recording respond to your wishes. I don't fully disagree with you, ncdrawl, but it is a preference thing that can be overused as a signature sound. In a way it lacks creativity because you are always relying on one answer to suit all situations.

As I said I am not arguing your philosophy, the simplest techniques offer quite a bit of sophistication to the thinking producer/engineer. No recording I can think of was actually improved by a dozen microphones on the drum set though I can think of many that were made better by an intentional departure from strict realism.

Quote:
Say for example, you are writing for a newspaper.. you wish to get some idea on how the listeners percieved the concert. Would you rather have one person sitting in the sweet spot giving you feedback , or 10 people all giving you feedback at the same time?

Wouldn't more opinions actually be beneficial? Maybe the one listener in the sweet spot had heartburn and didn't care for the work being performed. He'd give a lousy review no matter what. If I were trying to decipher the sound of a venue, yeah, I'd want those ten opinions since I might not get the seat in the sweet spot. I understand your comparison but it doesn't truly hold water unless your ideology aways trumps your commonsense. I'm not much on blind adherence to ideology. Use what serves the effort and don't bend the effort to fit your preconceived notions. For one thing, you grow stale if you aren't constantly thinking how you might have done better.

Quote:
The more microphones you add in, the more phase problems you present, and the more the final outcome relies on the engineer/mixer. . I dont know about you, but I dont want any engineer making balance decisions! With a simple stereo pair, the balance takes care of itself(if placed right), with multiple mics, the engineer has to cut/paste/ adjust volume and phase... yech

You have no choice in the decision making process unless you only listen to what you record for yourself. To restate the issue, I am not defending the poor choices made by many producers and engineers but I am saying I have to live with the decisions someone else has made well over 99% of the time. Those decisions do become a part of my buying habits - I won't continue to buy discs that disappoint me. Obviously, there are more than enough people who do not share my opinions of what constitutes good sound to keep a lot of companies and a lot of artists in business.

With a simple stereo pair, you have in many ways limited your choices. A lone pair of condensors will almost always favor the brighter instruments and the closer in instruments, the bass can get lost in the mix and the cymbals can be too upfront to be realistic. Which means you have to adjust the balance in the studio. Depending on the position of the mics relative to one another and to the performers, you have adjusted what I will hear anyway to favor your choice of placements. So, yes, it would be wonderful if everything I wanted to hear was only made to my specifications but only when you get to record everything you hear can that be - and then only when the preferred technique favors the performance.

You can't change your Elvis recordings to suit your preference for Blumlein. I know Sam Phillips didn't use Blumlein (though he did use a lot of omni's) and neither did RCA. That doesn't stop you from enjoying the performance, does it?

Anyway, what I downloaded sounded very nice. I would think a half dozen other mic techniques would have resulted in sound just as nice - with height of the guitar relative to the vocal - but what you captured was well worth the effort. Good going, ncdrawl.

Quote:
Using your Ravel example, JSB, where would you have placed the microphone(s) had your desire been to interpret exactly what the performer was hearing?

That's never been my desire but if it was, glued on either side of Mr Entremont's head would do. That of course could present some questions about appropriate playback methods but thankfully that's not a problem I'll ever have.
You could of course place microphones at ear level on a dummy head placed just beside the pianist but then you wouldn't hear Mr E's breathing ( or grunting if it was Glen Gould) with the correct balance.
How did we get to this bizarre idea?

Quote:
The room itself measures 18' by 33' and Sam went about designing by going around the room clapping his hands to feel the vibe of the room trying to get a sound that he felt was natural. Jim Dickinson, who worked as a producer at both Sun and Phillips Recording Service, said "The room sound, even with the gear they have in there now, is still special. It has to do with that old asbestos square acoustic tile, which covers everything but the floor. When you speak, you can feel the air pressure in the room. The more volume that you put into that room, the more the midrange compresses. It is sort of like the Phil Spector principle of putting in too much in too small of a space, and the whole room becomes a compressor."3

"All of the great recordings at Sun were literally made with five microphones," says Jim Dickinson, which included a RCA 77DX, Shure 55, RCA 44BX and an Altec Lansing pencil mic. The RCA 44-BX microphones and 77-DX (introduced in 1954) Poly-directional microphones are high-fidelity microphones of the ribbon type that are specially designed for broadcast studio use. The Shure 55 has all but become synonymous and easily identifiable as "the Elvis mic". Most of these mics at the time were bought in abundance for the military and could be picked up used as surplus very cheaply.

Sam worked with how each different vocalist would work the microphone. Some he'd have directly in front, maybe six inches back, others he would have work across the mic. Jim Dickinson said "even when Sam was using the RCA as a vocal mic, it was a room mic, if you get my point. The instruments were clustered around them, so the major character that you hear in those recordings is the room, or sometimes the room with slapback added."3

http://www.scottymoore.net/studio_sun.html

Lately I've been reading a few books on Delta Blues and they obviously include the connection Phillips had with the blues vocalists coming up to Memphis from the Mississippi delta. There's lots of interesting material about his early recordings of performers such as B.B.King and Howlin' Wolf, detailing how Phillips brought them to a broader audience by promoting and selling his recordings to race labels such as Chess Records in Chicago.

If you haven't read about Phillips and Sun studios - how Phillips created the slapback echo that became part of the Sun trademark sound - you should spend some time catching up. It's interesting history that's populated with larger than life characters.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksea...ter%2DGuralnick

http://www.tedgioia.com/deltablues.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0394747062/arkansasjazzheri/

http://www.librarything.com/work/357339

http://www.librarything.com/work/168232

Good stuff!

Thanks for posting your recording ncdrawl I found it very engaging and enjoyable. I used VLC Media player to listen with. The only comment I would have on the recording is that the noise floor is noticeable through headphones. This is a mere quibble though. The musicianship and engineering are both of a very high standard. It's interesting that you offered this for us to listen to just as I was reacquainting myself with binaural recording. I had a deep interest in this in my younger years and made numerous recordings using a home made microphone rig and a cassette recorder. None of my recordings survive but I remember getting some excellent results at a motor racing event once. After reading some reviews on the Korg digital recorder that DUP so highly recommended I began researching decent binaural microphones. My pick is the Neumann KU 100

http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=current_microphones&cid=ku100_description

Extremely expensive though! The Jecklin Disk is another possibility and carries the important factor of being only as expensive as the microphones you choose. I see you have used this method also. The Jecklin misses out on not using any kind of approximation of the external part of the human ear (the pinna). I looked into the Blumlein technique also however it seems angled more towards making recordings that are compatible with reproduction via stereo speakers which is why you've chosen it I assume.

All of this research led me to do some more digging into live recording of orchestras and ensembles The more I read, the more I realized that the common techniques have been developed primarily to make the recordings more pleasing to listen to on stereo speakers, not to be accurate. One example is the 'Decca Tree' which aims, mainly for reduction of phase incoherence, not the accurate recording of stereo sound. Before you all jump down my throat, the classic Decca Tree uses three omni-directional microphones. Humans lack a third ear so the central mic is there to 'fill' the recording. Instantly, we have an inaccurate recording. Why? Because you're using the center source to create a mix which will sound better on a stereo speaker setup. It creates the

Quote:
.

All of this research led me to do some more digging into live recording of orchestras and ensembles The more I read, the more I realized that the common techniques have been developed primarily to make the recordings more pleasing to listen to on stereo speakers, not to be accurate. One example is the 'Decca Tree' which aims, mainly for reduction of phase incoherence, not the accurate recording of stereo sound. Before you all jump down my throat, the classic Decca Tree uses three omni-directional microphones. Humans lack a third ear so the central mic is there to 'fill' the recording. Instantly, we have an inaccurate recording. Why? Because you're using the center source to create a mix which will sound better on a stereo speaker setup. It creates the

I sit in a plastic chair, read Noddy and listen to the Wiggles..

Quote:
I sit in a plastic chair, read Noddy and listen to the Wiggles..

Most gratifying to see someone keeping up cultural standards.

Quote:
http://rcpt.yousendit.com/661874271/71346dcfbaa2b53c4cbb8a9482db995f

Here is a down and dirty sample from a recording session last night. The mic was a modified AKG 426B stereo microphone set up in Blumlein configuration(my favorite mic technique) - http://www.wikirecording.org/Blumlein_Microphone_Technique
I use Blumlein whenever I can due to the fact that it is the most natural sounding technique. Minimum phase cancellation, precise localization of the recorded source and many other reasons..

I told you I would post samples, so here you go. 16/44.1 flac with the 24/96 full resolution file available too, if anyone wants it.

recording chain..there was NO EQ, no effects, no nothing. What you hear is as I heard it.

AKG 426B(Blumlein)>>>DAV Electronics BG-8 Microphone Preamp>>VOVOX Microphone Cable>>> RADAR V Classic @ 24/96.

output of RADAR>>>>Analysis Plus Cable>>>Mytek Stereo 192 ADC>>>Modified Masterlink >>burned a 24 bit data disc>>>
Opened 24/96 files in Samplitude v10 Professional( http://www.samplitude.com/eng/sam/uebersicht.html )(my DAW of choice)>>dithered to a 16/44.1 file with POW-R(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POW-R) Type 3 Dither Algorithm>>> output to a FLAC file(level 8) (samplitude will output FLAC directly)

some threads on blumlein
http://www.microphone-data.com/pdfs/Stereo%20zoom.pdf

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/853/0

Old thread, but I was just wondering if you could describe the recording space and details. How large is the room, where was the performer sitting, how far back were the mics? How is the room treated?

Yes I got it, and am just listening on my floorstanding computer speakers, old Polks. Sounds quite good!
I'm surprised that the mic was that far back given the medium sized room that looks fairly live.

How did you choose the above position for the mic? Did you answer this somewhere back in the thread - I'll go back and read it if so.

Quote:

WOW! An old MCI 8 track! I remember working on one of these when I was in my second job. We had the automated desk that went with it and what a disaster. The manufacturers decided to put the cheapest multipole switches in every module and five years down the track, they were all failing. That was one of the first tasks I had, to desolder and replace the switches. I had a really useless desoldering station and it took forever!

The multitrack was pretty bulletproof though, I only recall a few faults caused by the machine. The remainder of the faults were caused by the operators. I can still remember trying to teach the production manager that you shouldn't mix down off the cue heads (basically the record heads in playback mode). He had developed a habit of doing his commercials this way and was forever complaining that the EQ on the cue heads was bad! What a dope! No matter how many times I told him that the cue heads had no EQ adjustments he kept going on about it. His commercials sounded awful too. He later became a tire salesman and then was imprisoned after embezzling money from his employer

Interesting thread.

I have never tried Blumlein on a source this close. Interesting idea.

I rarely use Blumlein as a good room is critical. It is rare that I am location recording in a room good enough.

Finding the critical distance and then determining how much more direct sound one wants is amazingly tricky. I often record with spaced omnis and often find it a challenge to get the proper balance. A spaced omni pair is somewhat forgiving as the image is diffuse.

I have found that a Blumlein pair is not forgiving since the sound field is precise. Thus if you don't get it right the sound can be pretty miserable.

Of course, if I do not have time to experiment a nice ORTF primary pair is the way to go.

I'll look for "Spirit and The Blues". I am intrigued.

Moved to my better system with mini monitors. Do you find that this mic technique requires anything special in speaker placement?

Not really, but you will hear Blumlein best when the speakers are equidistant from you and from each other.

I'm hearing the vocal image significantly shifted to the right. The recording seems to be more sensitive than most to being in the sweet spot, but even there I'm not getting a clean center image. This system produces a good clean center image with more common recordings.