kaiser SET say:

TNRabbit:

 Here ya go:

 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O-hCtPfef8

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGsd1kiwZ38&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJsybbSHfx4&feature=related

 

 

Mmmm, DW's Would those also be Zilji's surrounding the camp of flames? If I were good enough to sit in with anyone I'm have DW's too

Yep; ALL Zildjians...as it should be!

Here's a few pics of my good kit. Tama Starclassic bubinga omnitune. Ohh yeah... If you can't tell they get played a lot. Like 4 or 5 times a week usually.

Nice big Bubinga set Ricci

Most people in Texas remember Trapeze Pauln, I graduted HS in 1975 San Antonio and Trapeze played all over texas back then If you have not picked up on any of Glenn Hughes's 15 or so solo albums start with one of his latest "Soul Mover" and just imagine Glenn's vocals and band with todays recording studios. I think you will be pleased or PM me and I'll make you some copies. I owe Colter the last three new releases I've gotten anyway

Sorry if I've thrown your thread off any Mark

 My God the boy just don't slow down, 4 new releases since Soul Mover

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_cdnow?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=Glenn+Hughes&Go.x=8&Go.y=9 

srobak:

 Two words:

Tama Imperialstar

:) 

I got 2 more...

Radio King ;)

Big bottom set up... w/ 26" kick.

Regarding Mark's original course of conversation, I believe all recording techniques can be divided into two main categories.  The dividing line is a wonderfully blurry, indistinct moving target seperating representational and non-representational motivations.  Basically, the creative team must decide (hopefully they're thinking about it) if they want the record to sound like a band in a room, a complete fantasy world or something between the two extremes. I accept and enjoy the whole spectrum, but as in visual media (photography and painting are good parallels), I can understand the varying tastes and tolerances we have.

Sample a cardboard box geetting hit with racquetball, jam it through a guitar amp and use it as a snare drum sound?  Hey, if it works that's cool with me.  Throw up a couple ribbon mics in a nice room and a big old tube condenser a couple feet off the kick drum?  Mmmmmmm....  mighty fine as well.

I dig both aesthetics for what they bring to the musical experience.

ben.:

Regarding Mark's original course of conversation, I believe all recording techniques can be divided into two main categories.  The dividing line is a wonderfully blurry, indistinct moving target seperating representational and non-representational motivations.  Basically, the creative team must decide (hopefully they're thinking about it) if they want the record to sound like a band in a room, a complete fantasy world or something between the two extremes. I accept and enjoy the whole spectrum, but as in visual media (photography and painting are good parallels), I can understand the varying tastes and tolerances we have.

Sample a cardboard box geetting hit with racquetball, jam it through a guitar amp and use it as a snare drum sound?  Hey, if it works that's cool with me.  Throw up a couple ribbon mics in a nice room and a big old tube condenser a couple feet off the kick drum?  Mmmmmmm....  mighty fine as well.

I dig both aesthetics for what they bring to the musical experience.

That's how I feel too.

Cask05:

When all the musicians go into separate, small, heavily damped sound recording rooms (including individual percussionists) and their tracks are laid down sequentially, then it is up to the mixing engineer to create the live composite sound.  I think the mixing engineers cannot recreate what happens in real life with real musicians (my opinion).  This was a big change in the mid-70s.  In this new mixing environment, I also think that mixing engineers compressed the percussion tracks to not exceed the dynamics of the rest of the non-percussion tracks.  Voila! Poor percussion recordings ever since.  The late 70s is also when electronic drums and disco came onto the scene. 

I think that the recording engineers basically stopped recording live music that was balanced by the musicians onstage in a live room/auditorium/theater.  A lot of people stopped buying “live” LPs at this time, probably because the sound of  “live” was considered to be less than that of studio-recorded LPs.  Go figure.

Chris

In my experience, the shortcormings are found in the attempted recreation of an acoustic space.  We're very senstive to phase relationships between sounds as it is critical in auditory location,  which was pretty helpful in perpetuating the human race for tens of thousands of years.  Simple microphone techniques and an appropriate acoustic space work best for realistic recordings as they do less damage to the phase response.  In my opinion, coherent phase relationships are up there with low distortion above flat frequency response.

Judicious use of compression on individual tracks actually sounds good.  Dynamic range compression is not the universal culprit of poor sound that it can seem to be these days.  Carelessly squash the life out of a stereo mix and it'll sound like radio before it hits the airwaves, but it sure won't sound like music in a room.  Beautiful results can be achieved if nice sounding compressors are used on individual tracks or groups of tracks.  I'd bet that the vast majority of recordings that folks declare free of this insidious beast called compression actually have some leveling of some sort going on with most if not all of the tracks.  It's just done well by people who can hear, so it sounds good.  It's not hard to do, you just have to want to make those kinds of records and know a few simple things about how to record sound.  It's really much easier than assembling a song from parts to me, but either path is equally vaild and relevant in my eyes.

Those were some mighty fine posts Ben, thanks.

 Ben, you hit the nail on the head. It's all in how you use these tools (compression, EQ, etc). Even on the direct to disc recoring I mentioned, it's probable that they had some sort of limiter or compressor working. It's just that it's so well done that the recording is alive and full of exciting dynamics. It was not overdone.

On another recording of a quartet, I believe, the whole thing is done live in such a way as to pick up the room- two mikes which got everything. It makes for an accurate portrayal of the live music, but it's not as exciting (to my ears) as the previous recording done with multiple mikes.

Multiple mics ?  Then dont call it a stereo recording....  I remember Pheifer producing a classical recording for RCA,,, They used 32 mics...  In a photo in OP mag  they showed 16 mics on a drum kit,,, and the Engineer called it a stereo recording..  Do you have 16 ears???

 Maron,

You are making it sound like multiple miking is a bad thing...stereo = 2 channel, and as long as the tracks are mixed down into two basic L &  R tracks, it ends up being a stereo recording. The panoramic soundstage will be as the engineer creates it and as the tracks are balanced. by the engineer. If it's well done, it will sound very good. What if you watched a video of an event, say a concert. Will the best video be one from a camera located soemwhere in the audience?:Or would it be better to see bits here and there which are up close and personal?

 By Maron's illogic, he'd want two video cameras since he's got two eyes.

Andy,,, No it does,nt,,, Its only two channel multimiked but not stereo,,.....  Benz Have you ever seen a stereo camera ?,,,I have one.  And Oh yes I have several stereo microphones,,, Try it Mike it really works.  The audible imagery is fantastic,,,No time alignment needed.  Oh and it also picks up hall ambience too.   Something your RED suitcase cant measure.

AndyKubicki:

 Maron,

You are making it sound like multiple miking is a bad thing...stereo = 2 channel, and as long as the tracks are mixed down into two basic L &  R tracks, it ends up being a stereo recording. The panoramic soundstage will be as the engineer creates it and as the tracks are balanced. by the engineer. If it's well done, it will sound very good. What if you watched a video of an event, say a concert. Will the best video be one from a camera located soemwhere in the audience?:Or would it be better to see bits here and there which are up close and personal?

Sorry Andy. Wrong! There are "stereo" recordings, and then there are true stereo recordings. The two should not be confused. A "True Stereo" recording uses TWO, and ONLY TWO microphones. There are several different microphone pickup "stereo techniques" such as coincident pair, or a spaced array. Sometimes, as in most Telarc & early Mercury Living Presence a phantom center microphone is also used. Most people still consider this a true stereo recording because the primary pickup is still from the two flanking mics.

A recording that was made using multiple microphones on multiple individual sources and then mixed down to "stereo" is NOT a true stereo recording. It's just a convenient marketing synonym that has become accepted by the general public, most of which by now have never heard a real stereo recording. The term is used to generally describe a type of recording in much the same way "stereo" is also used to describe a record player (i.e. "let's turn on the stereo")

You say "The panoramic sounstage will be as the engineer creates it and as the tracks are balanced by the engineer". Therein lies the problem. In many musical situations, such as orchestral or choral that's exactly the wrong thing to do. You cannot capture the sound of the space nor the perspective of the performance as you would hear it from the "best seat" in the concert hall by using so many mics close up near the instruments. All of the phase relationships of the sound field that our ears and brain use to identify location, distance and even timbre and frequency response are altered, if not destroyed, the more and more microphones we use simultaneously. This not to say it can't be done. I've heard some exceptional multi-mic recorded live performances, but these are very rare. And it's still not a "true stereo" recording.

There's something to be said for good old fashioned monoral recordings. Wasn't it PWK that refered to stereo as "diluted"? The same could be said for multiple mics ~ its just diluted stereo.

This is not to say that multi-mic recordings such as those produced somewhat artificially (performance wise) in a studio are bad. With certain kinds of music, IMO rock in particular, you can probably obtain better and more consistant results this way. But they are NOT "true stereo" recordings. I prefer to think of these as "multi-mono track" recordings ~ because thats exactly what they are.