Post by Tom DeaconPost by William SommerwerckPost by ungluedYou mean the increase in backround hiss in the recordings from the
60's and 70's was caused by the use of more mics and electronics?
In a sense, yes. The availability of multi-track recorders -- which had
narrower tracks, and thus poorer S/N ratio -- only encouraged the use
of more mics and complex recording consoles.
There is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with multi-track recordings.
The crossover between one track and another - from my experience in
the control room - is inaudible. They are more or less discrete tracks.
Any "crossover" effect is more likely to come through the microphone
itself, picking up the violas while aimed closely at the oboe, for example.
But even then the effects are minimal when the final mix is accomplished.
(Did you really want or expect to have the oboe and the violist sitting
directly in front of him to have their own discrete acoustic space? Such
would not, of course, be possible with a simple mike set up; the two
instruments would be blended).
I'm not trying to be rude when I ask... Have you ever made live recordings?
Simply miked recordings have their own set of problems, but I can make -- heck,
_you_ can make -- a better-sounding recording on a cassette deck, using just two
mics, than most recording engineers can make with a dozen mics and a fancy
console. The latter might have somewhat better balance, but will not present as
coherent a picture of the orchestra, or the recording space.
On the other hand... If you're not worried about "naturalness," you can get all
sorts of effects with multi-miking -- especially in surround sound -- than are
impossible in plain stereo. Take, for example, the EPB Freiburg Cathedral
recordings. The disk of the Bach T&Fs has been reissued on multi-channel SACD.
It is not only spectacular, but fairly realistic. Definitely demo quality,
regardless of your philosophy about such things.
I have about 100 Columbia SQ LPs, most of which are full-surround -- everything
from a set of the Brandenburgs to Wagner on the organ. They aren't
"natural"-sounding -- but most stereo recordings aren't, either. But they are a
lot more fun!
PS: I have an audiophile LP of two people playing dulcimer. A photo on the back
shows the recording session. The performers are sitting next to each other --
with a separate mic on each dulcimer. And each is wearing monitor headphones!
This is nuts.
Post by Tom DeaconThe S/N ratio has to do with the inherent noise floor of the tape system
itself, not the number of tracks on the tape head. Moreover, multitrack
machines use enormous tape, sometimes over one inch in width.
2", even.
But more tracks per inch means lower S/N, all other things being equal. 16
tracks on 1" tape is going to be noisier than 2 tracks on 1/4" tape. Although
half-track 1/4" recordings were not noise-free (even at 30ips), the move toward
multi-track machines was a major impetus to the adoption of Dolby A and similar
NR systems.
I'd swear that some of the Living Stereo recordings have almost no dynamic
range, because someone is subtly riding gain during the quiet passages. Anyone
out there who can confirm or deny this?
Post by Tom DeaconThe problems with multitrack recordings come in the final mixing of the
signals. Stokowski LOVED the ability to mix and blend in a way he could
not in the studio itself. He considered it part of his "artistic" statement.
True. Stokowski was always interested in the "latest and greatest" in recording
technology. Multi-channel recording made it possible to adjust the balance in a
way that was not possible with a single mono mic. (Living Presence was over a
decade in the future.) *
Post by Tom DeaconCheck out his Scheherazade on London Phase Four LP for an indication.
(Not sure if the CD used his mix or another one.)
Why hasn't Decca reissued the Phase Four catalog on surround SACDs, especially
the two albums of Bennie conducting his film scores? I have them on quad
open-reel tape, and they are nothing short of spectacular.
It's not clear why there are so few "full-surround" recordings on multi-channel
SACDs. (Berlioz's Requiem doesn't count.) Even the most-notorious surround
recording of all time, Boulez's "Concerto for Orchestra", puts only a few
instruments in the rear, and that only occasionally. (I have the original SQ LP,
and it's rather more exciting.)
There are two reasons, I think. One is aesthetic. Recording companies have
suddenly "gotten religion," and decided that the rear channels should be used
only for ambience. I find this appallingly hypocritical, as we have had to put
up with almost a half-century of atrocious-sounding multi-miked, heavily
processed two-channel recordings that rarely sound plausibly natural, let alone
"realistic."
The other is practical. Many surround systems use relatively small rear
speakers, which can't handle heavy bass. Of course, this doesn't seem to have
stopped the producers of the reissues of "Dark Side of the Moon," "Tommy,"
"Tubular Bells," et al., all of which are available on multi-channel SACDs.