A great post by Michael Bishop of Telarc on Stereo and MC Recordings...

MartinLogan Owners (MLO)

Help Support MartinLogan Owners (MLO):

DTB300

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2005
Messages
2,146
Reaction score
0
Location
Fallout 3 Land
Basically this thread started with someone trying to take a MC layer and having a player "remix" it down to two channel and commenting that the sound sucked.

Michael Bishop - recording engineer from Telarc make some great responses to this point...basically stated: "For Stereo listen to the Stereo Layer, and for MCH listen to the MCH layer as the recording process for each is specific to each."

BTW, One, I am a fan of Telarc and their SACD's and two, I also like the discs that Michael Bishop was the engineer on.

Here is a link to Michael Bisop's post on his recording techniques:

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/213840.html

And here is a great quote from Michael Bishop from this post:

"IMO, for large orchestra, a single stereo mic pair does not give me the perspective that I want to achieve. Also, there is NO such thing as a "purist" approach to recording music, IMO. ALL recording of any kind is an interpretation of the live music. The ONLY purist approach is to sit and listen to the live music IN-PERSON. A stereo mic pair will never, ever reproduce accurately what the our ears hear, at least not with any technology currently available to us."

Here is the beginning post of the thread if anyone is interested in doing some reading. Make sure to read all of Michael Bishops posts on the subject...

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/213761.html
 

roberto

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2005
Messages
3,076
Reaction score
10
Location
San Jose, Costa Rica
DTB300 said:
Basically this thread started with someone trying to take a MC layer and having a player "remix" it down to two channel and commenting that the sound sucked.

Michael Bishop - recording engineer from Telarc make some great responses to this point...basically stated: "For Stereo listen to the Stereo Layer, and for MCH listen to the MCH layer as the recording process for each is specific to each."

BTW, One, I am a fan of Telarc and their SACD's and two, I also like the discs that Michael Bishop was the engineer on.

Here is a link to Michael Bisop's post on his recording techniques:

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/213840.html

And here is a great quote from Michael Bishop from this post:

"IMO, for large orchestra, a single stereo mic pair does not give me the perspective that I want to achieve. Also, there is NO such thing as a "purist" approach to recording music, IMO. ALL recording of any kind is an interpretation of the live music. The ONLY purist approach is to sit and listen to the live music IN-PERSON. A stereo mic pair will never, ever reproduce accurately what the our ears hear, at least not with any technology currently available to us."

Here is the beginning post of the thread if anyone is interested in doing some reading. Make sure to read all of Michael Bishops posts on the subject...

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/213761.html
Hola Dan...the term "purist" as I understand is for those recordings that are aware of too much electronic compressed signal...electronic reverberation, not the truly ambience. the purist recordings are made of many less compression and equalizers...using better equipment. When you have the money and working with a company like Telarc, you can say all this, but the truth is that many other recording engeeniers have to use bad and not up-to dated recording studios. So again, there are other recording studios that uses less electronics process during the recording session and the final process, giving to us, the users, a better final product...as an example, Egil Kapstad, with the album Cherokee, Gemini Records, Rainbow Studio in Oslo, Norway. Very few recording equipment and a super great sound!...
Please don't get me wrong...Telarc is one of the best labels on these days, and very wealthy company. He can say that..."no purist"...
Regards my friend, :D :D :D
Roberto.
 

Viking

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
89
Reaction score
0
Location
67"N, Norway
roberto said:
Hola Dan...the term "purist" as I understand is for those recordings that are aware of too much electronic compressed signal...electronic reverberation, not the truly ambience. the purist recordings are made of many less compression and equalizers...using better equipment. When you have the money and working with a company like Telarc, you can say all this, but the truth is that many other recording engeeniers have to use bad and not up-to dated recording studios. So again, there are other recording studios that uses less electronics process during the recording session and the final process, giving to us, the users, a better final product...as an example, Egil Kapstad, with the album Cherokee, Gemini Records, Rainbow Studio in Oslo, Norway. Very few recording equipment and a super great sound!...
Please don't get me wrong...Telarc is one of the best labels on these days, and very wealthy company. He can say that..."no purist"...
Regards my friend, :D :D :D
Roberto.
Both norwegians Kongshaug of Rainbow Studioes and Hillestad of Kirkelig Kulturverksted (KKV) are wordclass when it comes to top quality recordings :)
 

DTB300

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2005
Messages
2,146
Reaction score
0
Location
Fallout 3 Land
roberto said:
Hola Dan...the term "purist" as I understand is for those recordings that are aware of too much electronic compressed signal...electronic reverberation, not the truly ambience. the purist recordings are made of many less compression and equalizers...using better equipment.
Exactly, and that is why many (not all) of the new recordings or music released is terrible - again not all. Too much processing, too many tracks then mixed together, too much electronics, etc. etc. I recently have picked up some of the recordings done back in the late 50's for classical and jazz done in one sitting in one take. Great stuff for such old recordings. Now do not get me wrong as there are great recordings done today by Telarc and the company/people you mention.

"ALL recording of any kind is an interpretation of the live music." And hence we will never achieve that "live" sound we are looking for, but we can get close if the recording companies also help us out. It is a shame the quality of some of the music one purchases.

Dan
 

roberto

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2005
Messages
3,076
Reaction score
10
Location
San Jose, Costa Rica
DTB300 said:
Exactly, and that is why many (not all) of the new recordings or music released is terrible - again not all. Too much processing, too many tracks then mixed together, too much electronics, etc. etc. I recently have picked up some of the recordings done back in the late 50's for classical and jazz done in one sitting in one take. Great stuff for such old recordings. Now do not get me wrong as there are great recordings done today by Telarc and the company/people you mention.

"ALL recording of any kind is an interpretation of the live music." And hence we will never achieve that "live" sound we are looking for, but we can get close if the recording companies also help us out. It is a shame the quality of some of the music one purchases.

Dan
Hola Dan...yes, I think that the problem was not the recording itself but to reproduce that recording...and the process to get it right to our hands...the final product. I have a recording made in late 58 with Ray Charles and Milt Jackson...incredible recording!!! to mention one. The "purist" want the closest thing to reality...and that´s one thing that ML gives to us as users...to listen the musicians playing the instruments, and not only the music itself!, scenario, air between instruments, and most of all: enjoying and fun!...happy listening my friends,
Roberto.
 

Jeff Zaret

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
1,214
Reaction score
0
Location
Lancaster,Ca
I have to agree here. The more you put in the "signal path" the more possibilties there are to alter the signal and change the "magic".

For example, I have two albums, yes I do mean vinyl, (sorry Dan), one is the original Dave Brubeck Quartet, Time Out, released in 1959, which is the one with "Take Five" and it is truly amazing. You would swear that Paul Desmond is playing the alto sax right in front of you! The other is a Stan Getz/Joao (Astrud's husband) Gilberto album called Getz/Gilberto. You would say they are right in front of you. There is very little processing on this album too. I do not remember the year but I am sure it was the early 60's. Astrud Gilberto sings "The Girl From Ipanea" which is one of the tunes that made this collaberation great plus one other new artist at the time, Antonio Carlos Jobim.

The point is the less processing the better the tonal representation is to our ears. This is why some live albums sound great and others sound like you are listening through a door.

This was my 2 cents.

BTW Dan, the Getz/Giberto album is available in SACD, now remastered. :)


Jeff :cool:
 

DTB300

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2005
Messages
2,146
Reaction score
0
Location
Fallout 3 Land
Jeff Zaret said:
BTW Dan, the Getz/Giberto album is available in SACD, now remastered.
Yep....It is on my list of SACD's to get and has received some very good reviews.
 

Latest posts

Top