Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Why audio quality matters - recording density
| Why audio quality matters - recording density [message #101872] |
Fri, 02 January 2009 19:43  |
Shane M
Messages: 12
Registered: December 2008
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Question: I was listening to a very long video on "why audio quality matters"
(this is about 2 1/2 hrs in total) where characteristics of favorite recordings
are discussed.
http://philoctetes.org/Past_Programs/Deep_Listening_Why_Audi o_Quality_Matters
and 3 themes of some favorite listenable recordings kept popping out at me.
1) space in the mix (density)
2) simplicity of signal chain
3) quiet (overall levels had a lot of true quiet - not just overcompressed
quiet - loudness wars)
obviously capturing a great performance is key, but it stood out to me that
tracks identified as great recordings seemed to have lower audio density.
(granted alot of the recordings seemed to be single takes in a the same
room too - maybe that's more of it).
I realize many of the older tracks were this way because of physical track
and time limitations that prohibited filling up of every sonic niche, but
it got me to wondering whether the current practice of stereo recording sources
may be contributing also once certain track thresholds are reached.
.... and along with that thought - have any of you purposefully attempted
to track more sources in mono to reduce the sonic footprint? Do you intentionally
force yourself to work with fewer tracks?
I guess at base I'm wondering if tracking multiple sources in stereo vs.
mono can contribute to mixes that in aggregate are harder to listen to.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why audio quality matters - recording density [message #101873 is a reply to message #101872] |
Fri, 02 January 2009 19:15  |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
One could definitely overkill the listener with loudness/compression and the
amount of tracks these days. I've found that generally great tracks recorded
well/performed well have a whole lot more to do with vibe than a slew of
crap flung into the sonic shelf. Pink Floyd is a great example of this IMHO,
or acoustic dudes like Junior Brown. The Beatles. Mr Mister were masters of
understanding the process and how to best use it, though hardly anyone knew
it on their last official release *Go On*.
The hardest part, for me anyway, is knowing that the track is slamming, EQ'd
right, played for the proper spacing from the start and literally hearing
the end product before you get there. So much is dependant on the artist and
knowing them and where they want to go. In the old days there was
development time, and getting to know each other. We don't so much get that
anymore, and it's visible to me at least the suffering it can cause to the
end product.
That all in account, space is the most left out aspect of modern recording
that shouldn't have been left behind and I squarely blame green engineers,
auto tune/quantizing and product mentality. I do have to say samples have
come a long long way and can now be played like a real instrument with the
understanding that they are in and unto themselves and not necessarily what
they are emulating. There's little to no art in assembly line thinking and
anyone in the process can screw the whole thing up by making
production-minded moves and not caressing the muse properly.
Just one dude's opinion.
AA
"Shane M" <shanem@nospam.com> wrote in message news:495ed0e6$1@linux...
>
> Question: I was listening to a very long video on "why audio quality
> matters"
> (this is about 2 1/2 hrs in total) where characteristics of favorite
> recordings
> are discussed.
>
> http://philoctetes.org/Past_Programs/Deep_Listening_Why_Audi o_Quality_Matters
>
> and 3 themes of some favorite listenable recordings kept popping out at
> me.
> 1) space in the mix (density)
> 2) simplicity of signal chain
> 3) quiet (overall levels had a lot of true quiet - not just overcompressed
> quiet - loudness wars)
>
> obviously capturing a great performance is key, but it stood out to me
> that
> tracks identified as great recordings seemed to have lower audio density.
> (granted alot of the recordings seemed to be single takes in a the same
> room too - maybe that's more of it).
>
> I realize many of the older tracks were this way because of physical track
> and time limitations that prohibited filling up of every sonic niche, but
> it got me to wondering whether the current practice of stereo recording
> sources
> may be contributing also once certain track thresholds are reached.
>
> ... and along with that thought - have any of you purposefully attempted
> to track more sources in mono to reduce the sonic footprint? Do you
> intentionally
> force yourself to work with fewer tracks?
>
> I guess at base I'm wondering if tracking multiple sources in stereo vs.
> mono can contribute to mixes that in aggregate are harder to listen to.
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why audio quality matters - recording density [message #101878 is a reply to message #101872] |
Sat, 03 January 2009 08:34 |
Ted Gerber
Messages: 705
Registered: January 2009
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I don't have time to watch the video in the next while, but I know from my
days as a Graphic Designer, that space in the design was key. I believe that
aural and visual principles equate, and therefore agree that space in the
audio pallette
goes a long way to communicating the message. (This assumes that
the message would be compromised by increased density; in some
cases a more dense design/mix could be part of the point.)
Track count, including mono vs stereo recording, would play a
huge role, but so would other factors, like quality of gear, AD conversion
and summing techniques. Aaron's comments about performance are bang on too.
Ted
"Shane M" <shanem@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>Question: I was listening to a very long video on "why audio quality matters"
> (this is about 2 1/2 hrs in total) where characteristics of favorite recordings
>are discussed.
>
> http://philoctetes.org/Past_Programs/Deep_Listening_Why_Audi o_Quality_Matters
>
>and 3 themes of some favorite listenable recordings kept popping out at
me.
>1) space in the mix (density)
>2) simplicity of signal chain
>3) quiet (overall levels had a lot of true quiet - not just overcompressed
>quiet - loudness wars)
>
>obviously capturing a great performance is key, but it stood out to me that
>tracks identified as great recordings seemed to have lower audio density.
> (granted alot of the recordings seemed to be single takes in a the same
>room too - maybe that's more of it).
>
>I realize many of the older tracks were this way because of physical track
>and time limitations that prohibited filling up of every sonic niche, but
>it got me to wondering whether the current practice of stereo recording
sources
>may be contributing also once certain track thresholds are reached.
>
>... and along with that thought - have any of you purposefully attempted
>to track more sources in mono to reduce the sonic footprint? Do you intentionally
>force yourself to work with fewer tracks?
>
>I guess at base I'm wondering if tracking multiple sources in stereo vs.
>mono can contribute to mixes that in aggregate are harder to listen to.
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why audio quality matters - recording density [message #101884 is a reply to message #101881] |
Sat, 03 January 2009 15:14 |
Shane M
Messages: 12
Registered: December 2008
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Wayne, that was exactly my thought listening to some of the samples. Individually
it sounds cool but does it hurt the aggregate?
I'm a hobbyist (definitely non-pro), but my tendency - largely unquestioned
- has always been to thicken it up, record more mics/sources if it sounded
better that way - without consideration of what it did for the total mix.
Because of my lack of skill I've noticed minimilism on drums works in my
favor, but hadn't questioned elsewhere.
My personal favorite recording/performance is Stevie Ray Vaughan's "Little
Wing" - I don't know how it was recorded but it's notably different in that
most of SRVs recordings don't approach that level of intimacy
"Wayne Carson" <waynecarson@cox.net> wrote:
>This is making me rethink all about every keyboard being stereo, stereo
>guitar pedal boards, acoustics being mic'd and piezo'd, drums being mix'd
in
>the entire stereo field and direct bass and cabinet mic'ng. And the
>overdub's are stereo too. Then there is the doubling of all vox's.
>Granted, it makes each instrument sound huge, and individually are a marvel
>to listen to. Today's tones have built in depth, but I guess after multiple
>tracks things can get awfully crowded. Not to forget that it also
>doubles the mix's workload.
>
>No wonder after listening to a single CD in headphones I have ear fatigue.
>
>Wayne
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why audio quality matters - recording density [message #101914 is a reply to message #101872] |
Mon, 05 January 2009 09:43 |
|
|
Lately I've been re-visiting a couple of my favorite recordings - "Me and
My Guitar" and "Manzanita" by Tony Rice. Apart from the great playing (and
singing!) the sound of those albums is amazing. Clear, deep, wide and natural.
Bill Wolf, the guy who recorded and mixed that stuff is now a mastering
engineer in Arlington, VA and I've asked him lots of questions about recording
that stuff. He says that he almost always used two mics on each instrument
but when I listen to the CD's I hear a great localization of each individual
instrument. One of the things that he's always said about the sound of the
instruments (Rice's guitar in particular) is that the guys all just made
them sound great. To me that kind of sums up the "density" issue. Great
players make their instruments sound good and create great arrangements that
allow the whole recording to open up and breath. Makes mixing a lot easier!
One of my favorite recent projects was a tune that was 2 guitars (elec +
acoustic), bass, drums, lead vocal and 3 or 4 female harmonies. Came out
sounding great!
Gantt
"Shane M" <shanem@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>Question: I was listening to a very long video on "why audio quality matters"
> (this is about 2 1/2 hrs in total) where characteristics of favorite recordings
>are discussed.
>
> http://philoctetes.org/Past_Programs/Deep_Listening_Why_Audi o_Quality_Matters
>
>and 3 themes of some favorite listenable recordings kept popping out at
me.
>1) space in the mix (density)
>2) simplicity of signal chain
>3) quiet (overall levels had a lot of true quiet - not just overcompressed
>quiet - loudness wars)
>
>obviously capturing a great performance is key, but it stood out to me that
>tracks identified as great recordings seemed to have lower audio density.
> (granted alot of the recordings seemed to be single takes in a the same
>room too - maybe that's more of it).
>
>I realize many of the older tracks were this way because of physical track
>and time limitations that prohibited filling up of every sonic niche, but
>it got me to wondering whether the current practice of stereo recording
sources
>may be contributing also once certain track thresholds are reached.
>
>... and along with that thought - have any of you purposefully attempted
>to track more sources in mono to reduce the sonic footprint? Do you intentionally
>force yourself to work with fewer tracks?
>
>I guess at base I'm wondering if tracking multiple sources in stereo vs.
>mono can contribute to mixes that in aggregate are harder to listen to.
>
>
>
Gantt Kushner
Gizmo Recording Company
Silver Spring, MD
www.gizmorecording.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why audio quality matters - recording density [message #101915 is a reply to message #101914] |
Mon, 05 January 2009 09:12 |
Tom Bruhl
Messages: 1368
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Gantt,
You are so right. The quality of the talent has everything
to do with the quality of the finished product. No production
tools or techniques can hide inability on the talent side. I find
myself dealing with that more often than I'd like.
I'll have to check out the recordings you suggested here!
Tom
"Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:496238af$1@linux...
>
> Lately I've been re-visiting a couple of my favorite recordings - "Me and
> My Guitar" and "Manzanita" by Tony Rice. Apart from the great playing
> (and
> singing!) the sound of those albums is amazing. Clear, deep, wide and
> natural.
> Bill Wolf, the guy who recorded and mixed that stuff is now a mastering
> engineer in Arlington, VA and I've asked him lots of questions about
> recording
> that stuff. He says that he almost always used two mics on each
> instrument
> but when I listen to the CD's I hear a great localization of each
> individual
> instrument. One of the things that he's always said about the sound of
> the
> instruments (Rice's guitar in particular) is that the guys all just made
> them sound great. To me that kind of sums up the "density" issue. Great
> players make their instruments sound good and create great arrangements
> that
> allow the whole recording to open up and breath. Makes mixing a lot
> easier!
> One of my favorite recent projects was a tune that was 2 guitars (elec +
> acoustic), bass, drums, lead vocal and 3 or 4 female harmonies. Came out
> sounding great!
>
> Gantt
>
> "Shane M" <shanem@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>Question: I was listening to a very long video on "why audio quality
>>matters"
>> (this is about 2 1/2 hrs in total) where characteristics of favorite
>> recordings
>>are discussed.
>>
>> http://philoctetes.org/Past_Programs/Deep_Listening_Why_Audi o_Quality_Matters
>>
>>and 3 themes of some favorite listenable recordings kept popping out at
> me.
>>1) space in the mix (density)
>>2) simplicity of signal chain
>>3) quiet (overall levels had a lot of true quiet - not just overcompressed
>>quiet - loudness wars)
>>
>>obviously capturing a great performance is key, but it stood out to me
>>that
>>tracks identified as great recordings seemed to have lower audio density.
>> (granted alot of the recordings seemed to be single takes in a the same
>>room too - maybe that's more of it).
>>
>>I realize many of the older tracks were this way because of physical track
>>and time limitations that prohibited filling up of every sonic niche, but
>>it got me to wondering whether the current practice of stereo recording
> sources
>>may be contributing also once certain track thresholds are reached.
>>
>>... and along with that thought - have any of you purposefully attempted
>>to track more sources in mono to reduce the sonic footprint? Do you
>>intentionally
>>force yourself to work with fewer tracks?
>>
>>I guess at base I'm wondering if tracking multiple sources in stereo vs.
>>mono can contribute to mixes that in aggregate are harder to listen to.
>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why audio quality matters - recording density [message #101925 is a reply to message #101915] |
Mon, 05 January 2009 20:20 |
|
|
"Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote:
>Gantt,
>
>You are so right. The quality of the talent has everything
>to do with the quality of the finished product. No production
>tools or techniques can hide inability on the talent side. I find
>myself dealing with that more often than I'd like.
>
>I'll have to check out the recordings you suggested here!
>
>Tom
>
>
>"Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:496238af$1@linux...
>>
>> Lately I've been re-visiting a couple of my favorite recordings - "Me
and
>> My Guitar" and "Manzanita" by Tony Rice. Apart from the great playing
>> (and
>> singing!) the sound of those albums is amazing. Clear, deep, wide and
>> natural.
>> Bill Wolf, the guy who recorded and mixed that stuff is now a mastering
>> engineer in Arlington, VA and I've asked him lots of questions about
>> recording
>> that stuff. He says that he almost always used two mics on each
>> instrument
>> but when I listen to the CD's I hear a great localization of each
>> individual
>> instrument. One of the things that he's always said about the sound of
>> the
>> instruments (Rice's guitar in particular) is that the guys all just made
>> them sound great. To me that kind of sums up the "density" issue. Great
>> players make their instruments sound good and create great arrangements
>> that
>> allow the whole recording to open up and breath. Makes mixing a lot
>> easier!
>> One of my favorite recent projects was a tune that was 2 guitars (elec
+
>> acoustic), bass, drums, lead vocal and 3 or 4 female harmonies. Came
out
>> sounding great!
>>
>> Gantt
>>
>> "Shane M" <shanem@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Question: I was listening to a very long video on "why audio quality
>>>matters"
>>> (this is about 2 1/2 hrs in total) where characteristics of favorite
>>> recordings
>>>are discussed.
>>>
>>> http://philoctetes.org/Past_Programs/Deep_Listening_Why_Audi o_Quality_Matters
>>>
>>>and 3 themes of some favorite listenable recordings kept popping out at
>> me.
>>>1) space in the mix (density)
>>>2) simplicity of signal chain
>>>3) quiet (overall levels had a lot of true quiet - not just overcompressed
>>>quiet - loudness wars)
>>>
>>>obviously capturing a great performance is key, but it stood out to me
>>>that
>>>tracks identified as great recordings seemed to have lower audio density.
>>> (granted alot of the recordings seemed to be single takes in a the same
>>>room too - maybe that's more of it).
>>>
>>>I realize many of the older tracks were this way because of physical track
>>>and time limitations that prohibited filling up of every sonic niche,
but
>>>it got me to wondering whether the current practice of stereo recording
>> sources
>>>may be contributing also once certain track thresholds are reached.
>>>
>>>... and along with that thought - have any of you purposefully attempted
>>>to track more sources in mono to reduce the sonic footprint? Do you
>>>intentionally
>>>force yourself to work with fewer tracks?
>>>
>>>I guess at base I'm wondering if tracking multiple sources in stereo vs.
>>>mono can contribute to mixes that in aggregate are harder to listen to.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Gantt Kushner
Gizmo Recording Company
Silver Spring, MD
www.gizmorecording.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why audio quality matters - recording density [message #101926 is a reply to message #101915] |
Mon, 05 January 2009 20:20 |
|
|
"Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote:
>Gantt,
>
>You are so right. The quality of the talent has everything
>to do with the quality of the finished product. No production
>tools or techniques can hide inability on the talent side. I find
>myself dealing with that more often than I'd like.
>
>I'll have to check out the recordings you suggested here!
>
>Tom
>
>
>"Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:496238af$1@linux...
>>
>> Lately I've been re-visiting a couple of my favorite recordings - "Me
and
>> My Guitar" and "Manzanita" by Tony Rice. Apart from the great playing
>> (and
>> singing!) the sound of those albums is amazing. Clear, deep, wide and
>> natural.
>> Bill Wolf, the guy who recorded and mixed that stuff is now a mastering
>> engineer in Arlington, VA and I've asked him lots of questions about
>> recording
>> that stuff. He says that he almost always used two mics on each
>> instrument
>> but when I listen to the CD's I hear a great localization of each
>> individual
>> instrument. One of the things that he's always said about the sound of
>> the
>> instruments (Rice's guitar in particular) is that the guys all just made
>> them sound great. To me that kind of sums up the "density" issue. Great
>> players make their instruments sound good and create great arrangements
>> that
>> allow the whole recording to open up and breath. Makes mixing a lot
>> easier!
>> One of my favorite recent projects was a tune that was 2 guitars (elec
+
>> acoustic), bass, drums, lead vocal and 3 or 4 female harmonies. Came
out
>> sounding great!
>>
>> Gantt
>>
>> "Shane M" <shanem@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Question: I was listening to a very long video on "why audio quality
>>>matters"
>>> (this is about 2 1/2 hrs in total) where characteristics of favorite
>>> recordings
>>>are discussed.
>>>
>>> http://philoctetes.org/Past_Programs/Deep_Listening_Why_Audi o_Quality_Matters
>>>
>>>and 3 themes of some favorite listenable recordings kept popping out at
>> me.
>>>1) space in the mix (density)
>>>2) simplicity of signal chain
>>>3) quiet (overall levels had a lot of true quiet - not just overcompressed
>>>quiet - loudness wars)
>>>
>>>obviously capturing a great performance is key, but it stood out to me
>>>that
>>>tracks identified as great recordings seemed to have lower audio density.
>>> (granted alot of the recordings seemed to be single takes in a the same
>>>room too - maybe that's more of it).
>>>
>>>I realize many of the older tracks were this way because of physical track
>>>and time limitations that prohibited filling up of every sonic niche,
but
>>>it got me to wondering whether the current practice of stereo recording
>> sources
>>>may be contributing also once certain track thresholds are reached.
>>>
>>>... and along with that thought - have any of you purposefully attempted
>>>to track more sources in mono to reduce the sonic footprint? Do you
>>>intentionally
>>>force yourself to work with fewer tracks?
>>>
>>>I guess at base I'm wondering if tracking multiple sources in stereo vs.
>>>mono can contribute to mixes that in aggregate are harder to listen to.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Gantt Kushner
Gizmo Recording Company
Silver Spring, MD
www.gizmorecording.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why audio quality matters - recording density [message #101927 is a reply to message #101926] |
Mon, 05 January 2009 20:29 |
|
|
Oops. Posted a non-message.
One of the things that I think a lot about these days is that my job as a
recording engineer seems to have become that of polishing turds. Many of
my clients fall into the category of "maybe you should go home and practice
for a year or two and come back and try again" but, because the technology
allows us to compensate for so many musical short-comings (and because I
need the $$$!!!), we are expected to perform miracles. The problem is that
someone who can't play good, consistent and in-tune bass or guitar parts
also probably doesn't know how to get a good sound out of the instrument.
Drums take a certain touch. Generating great tone with your voice requires
skills that can take years to hone to even a semi-professional level, let
alone the level of a Tony Rice or Allison Kraus or Diana Krall. So, if the
ingredients for a truly great sounding recording are tone, tuning, performance
and arrangement (oh yeah - composition!) then what are those of us who troll
around at the bottom of the musical barrel left to work with? I count my
blessings every time I get to work with a really talented group or artist.
It sure makes my job easier!
Gantt
"Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote:
>>Gantt,
>>
>>You are so right. The quality of the talent has everything
>>to do with the quality of the finished product. No production
>>tools or techniques can hide inability on the talent side. I find
>>myself dealing with that more often than I'd like.
>>
>>I'll have to check out the recordings you suggested here!
>>
>>Tom
>>
>>
>>"Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:496238af$1@linux...
>>>
>>> Lately I've been re-visiting a couple of my favorite recordings - "Me
>and
>>> My Guitar" and "Manzanita" by Tony Rice. Apart from the great playing
>
>>> (and
>>> singing!) the sound of those albums is amazing. Clear, deep, wide and
>
>>> natural.
>>> Bill Wolf, the guy who recorded and mixed that stuff is now a mastering
>>> engineer in Arlington, VA and I've asked him lots of questions about
>>> recording
>>> that stuff. He says that he almost always used two mics on each
>>> instrument
>>> but when I listen to the CD's I hear a great localization of each
>>> individual
>>> instrument. One of the things that he's always said about the sound
of
>
>>> the
>>> instruments (Rice's guitar in particular) is that the guys all just made
>>> them sound great. To me that kind of sums up the "density" issue. Great
>>> players make their instruments sound good and create great arrangements
>
>>> that
>>> allow the whole recording to open up and breath. Makes mixing a lot
>>> easier!
>>> One of my favorite recent projects was a tune that was 2 guitars (elec
>+
>>> acoustic), bass, drums, lead vocal and 3 or 4 female harmonies. Came
>out
>>> sounding great!
>>>
>>> Gantt
>>>
>>> "Shane M" <shanem@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Question: I was listening to a very long video on "why audio quality
>
>>>>matters"
>>>> (this is about 2 1/2 hrs in total) where characteristics of favorite
>
>>>> recordings
>>>>are discussed.
>>>>
>>>> http://philoctetes.org/Past_Programs/Deep_Listening_Why_Audi o_Quality_Matters
>>>>
>>>>and 3 themes of some favorite listenable recordings kept popping out
at
>>> me.
>>>>1) space in the mix (density)
>>>>2) simplicity of signal chain
>>>>3) quiet (overall levels had a lot of true quiet - not just overcompressed
>>>>quiet - loudness wars)
>>>>
>>>>obviously capturing a great performance is key, but it stood out to me
>
>>>>that
>>>>tracks identified as great recordings seemed to have lower audio density.
>>>> (granted alot of the recordings seemed to be single takes in a the same
>>>>room too - maybe that's more of it).
>>>>
>>>>I realize many of the older tracks were this way because of physical
track
>>>>and time limitations that prohibited filling up of every sonic niche,
>but
>>>>it got me to wondering whether the current practice of stereo recording
>>> sources
>>>>may be contributing also once certain track thresholds are reached.
>>>>
>>>>... and along with that thought - have any of you purposefully attempted
>>>>to track more sources in mono to reduce the sonic footprint? Do you
>>>>intentionally
>>>>force yourself to work with fewer tracks?
>>>>
>>>>I guess at base I'm wondering if tracking multiple sources in stereo
vs.
>>>>mono can contribute to mixes that in aggregate are harder to listen to.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Gantt Kushner
Gizmo Recording Company
Silver Spring, MD
www.gizmorecording.com
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Dec 27 03:28:28 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02189 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
