Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

XY vs. ORTF Small Theater

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 10:14:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'll be recording a performance soon in a small-mid sized college
theater, seats about 500. The performaces range from solo classical
guitar to a jazz trio and small orchestral ensemble. I'll be using a
pair of Octava MC-012s with cardiod, hypercardiod and omni capsules,
Grace pres and DAT recorders. I'll most likley set up 1/4 of the way
back in XY but am wondering of the pros and cons of other mic
techniques. Any advice from those who regularly do this sort of work?

More about : ortf small theater

Anonymous
December 16, 2004 1:47:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1103210089.178558.9640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
<tymish@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I'll be recording a performance soon in a small-mid sized college
>theater, seats about 500. The performaces range from solo classical
>guitar to a jazz trio and small orchestral ensemble. I'll be using a
>pair of Octava MC-012s with cardiod, hypercardiod and omni capsules,
>Grace pres and DAT recorders. I'll most likley set up 1/4 of the way
>back in XY but am wondering of the pros and cons of other mic
>techniques. Any advice from those who regularly do this sort of work?

Try it and see. ORTF will give you a bit better sense of depth, I think,
but you may well find yourself happier with something different than
either one. In some rooms it might help you to toe things in or out
more than the official ORTF recommendation.

I would suggest ORTF or XY if you're doing this for the first time in
an unknown room, because they are probably the easiest to learn to place
properly. Go to the rehearsal with the rig and a pair of speakers and
move the pair around to get a sense of the room. You will most likely
want to be farther back during the performance than the rehearsal because
the room reverb time will drop when it's full of people, however.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 2:57:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

will you be able to change your set up between performances?
omni allows you to get close without the proximity effect.
ORTF

dale
Related resources
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 3:13:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Well, I seriously doubt I'll be within the foot or so where proximity
effect will be a factor.
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 5:26:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<tymish@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I'll be recording a performance soon in a small-mid sized college
>theater, seats about 500. The performaces range from solo classical
>guitar to a jazz trio and small orchestral ensemble. I'll be using a
>pair of Octava MC-012s with cardiod, hypercardiod and omni capsules,
>Grace pres and DAT recorders. I'll most likley set up 1/4 of the way
>back in XY but am wondering of the pros and cons of other mic
>techniques. Any advice from those who regularly do this sort of work?

If the room sounds good, use the omnis and mount 'em on a Jecklin or
Schneider Disk. You'll get the benefit of the omnis' flat frequency
response and good off-axis response, with strong location cues thanks to
the Disk.

Position the Disk closer than you'd expect. Make a few test recordings
and balance the direct to room sound by moving the disk forward or back.




--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
moskowit@core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 8:49:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<tymish@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103210089.178558.9640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I'll be recording a performance soon in a small-mid sized college
> theater, seats about 500. The performaces range from solo classical
> guitar to a jazz trio and small orchestral ensemble. I'll be using a
> pair of Octava MC-012s with cardiod, hypercardiod and omni capsules,
> Grace pres and DAT recorders. I'll most likley set up 1/4 of the way
> back in XY but am wondering of the pros and cons of other mic
> techniques. Any advice from those who regularly do this sort of work?

If the room's decent I'd be inclined to start with ORTF (better space) and
maybe move in a bit closer.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 9:17:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< am wondering of the pros and cons of other mic
techniques. >>



Between XY, ORTF, MS, spaced omni & all their variants, it's really a taste
call. One is not inherently better than another, just different. Be aware also,
that these techniques are not mutually exclusive of one another. They exist on
a spectrum that achieves stereo by either arrival differences or pressure
differences, or a combination of both. In other words, you can go halfway
between XY & ORTF if you like that result.
Of course, you can also do what I did last Sunday when a preamp channel arrived
DOA at the concert; record in mono.

Scott Fraser
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 9:40:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

tymish@hotmail.com wrote in news:1103210089.178558.9640
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

> I'll be recording a performance soon in a small-mid sized college
> theater, seats about 500. The performaces range from solo classical
> guitar to a jazz trio and small orchestral ensemble. I'll be using a
> pair of Octava MC-012s with cardiod, hypercardiod and omni capsules,
> Grace pres and DAT recorders. I'll most likley set up 1/4 of the way
> back in XY but am wondering of the pros and cons of other mic
> techniques. Any advice from those who regularly do this sort of work?

I will default to ORTF in most cases. Good stereo image and plays well in
headphones. Not as good as XY for mono compatibility.

XY wins when...

1) When the source is a single voice/instrument, a point source. Solo with
accompanist sometimes counts if I want the solo centered and the
accompanist is far off axis.

2) When the source moves. A performer who moves about can create a wildly
shifting stereo image in microphones spaced even as close as ORTF.
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 10:51:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> I'll be recording a performance soon in a small-mid sized college
> theater, seats about 500. The performaces range from solo classical
> guitar to a jazz trio and small orchestral ensemble. I'll be using a
> pair of Octava MC-012s with cardiod, hypercardiod and omni capsules,
> Grace pres and DAT recorders. I'll most likley set up 1/4 of the way
> back in XY but am wondering of the pros and cons of other mic
> techniques. Any advice from those who regularly do this sort of work?

That's probably where I'd start if there was no sound reinforcement.

If there is significant sound reinforcement from a pair of speakers you must
use coincident mics to avoid comb-filtering, so XY no matter what.
Generally 1/2-2/3 of the way to the back to get good direct fire from the
speakers.

And unless you like wasting time and money, ditch the DAT deck for a Nomad
Jukebox 3.
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 1:49:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <78Lwd.310$Wt5.202303@read2.cgocable.net>,
"Sugarite" <nobody@home.com> wrote:

> If there is significant sound reinforcement from a pair of speakers you must
> use coincident mics to avoid comb-filtering, so XY no matter what.

Perhaps I'm thinking incorrectly, but I would suggest the exact
opposite. Depending on how the live sound engineer is driving the PA, it
is quite likely that the two speakers are outputting the same exact
waveform. This means that, unless you are EXACTLY centered between them,
there will already be acoustic comb filtering at any point in the
theater. Therefore, if you place your mics in a coincident pattern, you
pick up the acoustic comb filter at that specific point. If you used a
space stereo recording technique, then you pick up slightly different
filters on your left and right channel given that they have slightly
different time offsets from the L and R speakers. Since the PA is
filtered differently on the two mics, your brain has a chance of picking
up the actual sound that's coming from the speakers. If the two mics
have the same filter pattern, you're less likely to be able to separate
it out.

This is one of the reasons that most theater sound designers choose to
send their vocals to a single "center cluster" arrangement of
loudspeakers. It minimizes the comb filtering that you get when sending
identical signals out of L and R when listening from anywhere except the
exact center of the house. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't think
about this and you get some weird sound reinforcement.

-Todd
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 6:21:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Sugarite wrote:

> That's probably where I'd start if there was no sound reinforcement.
>
> If there is significant sound reinforcement from a pair of speakers
you must
> use coincident mics to avoid comb-filtering, so XY no matter what.
> Generally 1/2-2/3 of the way to the back to get good direct fire from
the
> speakers.
>
> And unless you like wasting time and money, ditch the DAT deck for a
Nomad
> Jukebox 3.

taper beware,
the nomad is a mp3 audio device. it has less audio quality then the
dat.
classical music does not general use sound reinforcement
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 11:42:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Grace pres
>The signal path is more than simply transparent or neutral; it is an
invisible link between your >microphone and tape recorder. So after
your careful microphone selection and placement, you can be >confident
that what your microphone hears is what your recording device will
capture.

and the d/a on the jukebox are the same quality as your dat ?

seems illogical to do the quality of grace into
a device sold as a $250 mp3 player
the sound is only as good as it's weakest link.

dale
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 12:22:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

dale wrote:
>> In article <1103368873.757519.296500@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> dallen@frognet.net writes:
>>
>>
>>> taper beware, the nomad is
>>> a mp3 audio device. it has less audio quality then the dat.
>>
>>
>> Uninformed poster beware.
>>
>> The Nomad Jukebox 3 can record 44.1 kHz WAV files, uncompressed. The
>> only thing about it that's lower quality than my DAT is the mini jack
>> for the input.
>
>
>
> and the d/a on the jukebox are the same quality as your dat ?

The D/A is quite good, especially when compared to other portables. The A/D is serviceable by today's standards (and equal to or better than most DAT machine, mostly just because it's newer.)



> seems illogical to do the quality of grace into
> a device sold as a $250 mp3 player
> the sound is only as good as it's weakest link.

That's why many tapers use the digital input on the NJB3. You can order a V3 with an optical out (in place of the WC jack IIRC) or use an external coax-optical conversion box.
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 1:28:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1103368873.757519.296500@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> dallen@frognet.net writes:

> taper beware,
> the nomad is a mp3 audio device. it has less audio quality then the
> dat.

Uninformed poster beware.

The Nomad Jukebox 3 can record 44.1 kHz WAV files, uncompressed. The
only thing about it that's lower quality than my DAT is the mini jack
for the input.

> classical music does not general use sound reinforcement

Depends on where it's performed, and what the music is.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 2:51:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I am now better informed on why many tapers use the digital input on
the NJB3.


>I'll most likley set up 1/4 of the way back in XY
>but am wondering of the pros and cons of other mic techniques.

>Any advice from those who regularly do this sort of work?

as I read the question, I heard some nice pre's with decent equipment.

It has been my experience with classical,
if there are amplified systems, they are mentioned.
it has also been my experience with classical
that the recording of the performance is in the ensemble
and not the sound reinforcement system.
(the mix of the system is to smooth room issues)
as it is with my experience that the PA sound is what you are after
in amplified non classical music.

ORTF, omni,.......much closer then you think. you will find
that the proscenium arch of a theater can play a factor in mic
placement which does not exist in a "concert hall "

Dale






dale
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 7:23:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1103388121.324579.281160@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> dallen@frognet.net writes:

> and the d/a on the jukebox are the same quality as your dat ?

I don't know about the D/A quality of the Jukebox because the only
time I listen to a playback through those converters is for monitoring
while recording or when listening through headphones on an airplane.
But the A/D converstion is certainly up to par with my DAT. Remember,
micro-technology improves a whole lot in a ten year period.

> seems illogical to do the quality of grace into
> a device sold as a $250 mp3 player

Strange as it may seem, it's not so bad. I was actually looking at the
Lunatec V3 (I think that's the model) to use with my Jukebox. It's
available with a digital ouptut, but it's not optical, which is what
the Jukebox takes for its digital input, and adding a converter would
be awkward and not as portable as I'd like. I'm still waiting for the
perfect preamp to use with it (and to fit my *perfect* model, it can't
cost twice as much as the Jukebox itself - that' the hard part).

I did evaluate the Core Sound preamp that they sell as a companion to
their PDA interface. It sounded fine and had enough gain for most
applications, was reasonably small, and ran on batteries. I just
couldn't learn to like the form factor, though - too many things on
too many sides. A unit like that should have a front and a back, and
the sides should only hold the case together, not have needed
conectors on them.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 7:23:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <32j7auF3n6o8aU1@individual.net> kurt@nv.net writes:

> That's why many tapers use the digital input on the NJB3. You can order a V3
> with an optical out (in place of the WC jack IIRC) or use an external
> coax-optical conversion box.

Hey! I didn't know that. [putting on my best Les Paul voice] I
invented that! A couple of AES shows ago, I was talking with the
Grace guy (Mr. Grace I think) telling him why I couldn't use his
preamp and we talked about a place where he could put an optical
output. Too bad you have to sacrafice the word clock, though, but if
it was going to live with the Jukebox, that's not a concern.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 7:56:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< > classical music does not general use sound reinforcement>

<Depends on where it's performed, and what the music is.
>>



And the artistic intent of the performers. After all these years, I still have
to explain to nervous promoters that the Kronos Quartet is, by definition, an
amplified string quartet, & that it has absolutely nothing to do with the
quality or lack thereof of the venue's acoustics, & no, thank you very much, we
will not consider the possibility of doing the performance without a sound
system to see if the acoustics can support the quartet adequately.
Scott Fraser
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 1:35:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"ScotFraser" wrote:

> And the artistic intent of the performers. After all these years, I still
have
> to explain to nervous promoters that the Kronos Quartet is, by definition,
an
> amplified string quartet, & that it has absolutely nothing to do with the
> quality or lack thereof of the venue's acoustics, & no, thank you very
much, we
> will not consider the possibility of doing the performance without a sound
> system to see if the acoustics can support the quartet adequately.

Interesting... do they record with any amplification? Is it just so they're
loud or for another effect?

The only Kronos record I have is "White Man Sleeps" (1987) which seems
pretty acoustic. I can't remember whether they had SR the one time I
saw/heard them (mid/late '80s somewhere).

-jw
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 10:24:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>Too bad you have to sacrafice the word clock, though, but if
>it was going to live with the Jukebox, that's not a concern.

why ?...... (the weakest link?)

>The D/A is quite good. The A/D is serviceable by today's standards
>(and equal to or better than most

(CHEAP ?)

>DAT machines, mostly just because it's newer.)
>micro-technology improves a whole lot in a ten year period.

so the sansui amp with the micro intergrated chips will improve the
sound of my Linn monitors????
(it's newer technology then the mono block naim...)

yeah, maybe the bose wave system using the newest micro technology and
servicable d/a can replace
all mastering setups..........., and the noise canceling headphones
.......


don't forget to highly compress all the audio, that's how it's done
now.
dale
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 3:56:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

dale wrote:
>> Too bad you have to sacrafice the word clock, though, but if
>> it was going to live with the Jukebox, that's not a concern.
>
>
> why ?...... (the weakest link?)

Unless you're planning to link the V3 with other ADCs for multichannel use, the WC out will probably never be needed.




>> The D/A is quite good. The A/D is serviceable by today's standards
>> (and equal to or better than most
>
> (CHEAP ?)
>
>> DAT machines, mostly just because it's newer.)
>> micro-technology improves a whole lot in a ten year period.
>
>
> so the sansui amp with the micro intergrated chips will improve the
> sound of my Linn monitors????
> (it's newer technology then the mono block naim...)

Of course not. But the DAC in the NJB3 is better than the one in my original Karik, and its ADC is better than the ones in most DAT machines simply due to age. I remember going to quite a bit of trouble to improve the analog and A/D on DAT machines (anyone remember Apogee modules?)




> yeah, maybe the bose wave system using the newest micro technology and
> servicable d/a can replace
> all mastering setups..........., and the noise canceling headphones
> ......

This is a box that can be had for $140 (refurb, direct from Creative) and does a pretty amazing job. Its playback quality is noticeably better than most portables (whatever their price.) Currently, there is *still* a large hole in the market between the portable toys and the pro gear.

I finally have my long-awaited Sound Devices 744T and am happy to have one box that just *works* for many of my needs. The two channel version (722) costs about $1000 more than a V3 and (IMO) has a comparable frontend. Sound Devices was smart enough to put the ADC and clock on a daughtercard so they can take advantage of future ADC improvements and make the 7-Series a little less susceptible to the planned obsolescence that plagues our industry these days.
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 7:06:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1103469882.188230.297270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> dallen@frognet.net writes:

> >Too bad you have to sacrafice the word clock, though, but if
> >it was going to live with the Jukebox, that's not a concern.
>
> why ?...... (the weakest link?)

We're talking about a Grace preamp modified with an optical output
instead of a word clock (in, out, or either - I'm not sure) connector.

The answer is that if there's a weak link between the preamp and the
Jukebox recorder, it's the fiber optic cable, and that isn't really
all that bad, particulaly at 44.1 kHz. It would be better if the
Jukebox had an AES/EBU input, but it doesn't.

S/PDIF inputs are self-clocking from the data stream, so there's no
need to connect the word clock externally. Since we're talking
straightforward stereo here, not multiple preamps for muliple pairs of
channels. The only reason why I suggested that it would have been
nicer not to sacrafice the word clock connection is if I wanted to use
the preamp for something other than with the Jukebox. For instance, if
I used it with my HDR24/96 for two channels, along with another preamp
with a digital output or external A/D converter, I'd want to be able
to synchronize the Grace preamp's word clock. I couldn't do that
without a connector.

> >DAT machines, mostly just because it's newer.)
> >micro-technology improves a whole lot in a ten year period.
>
> so the sansui amp with the micro intergrated chips will improve the
> sound of my Linn monitors????
> (it's newer technology then the mono block naim...)

Oh, piddle! Some people will argue the stupidest things just to put
down a simplified generality. What's your agenda? Hooking them up to
your car stereo probabably won't improve them either. But A/D chips
are definitely better today than they were ten years ago. Even a cheap
computer sound card has better A/D than most DAT recorders. The reason
why they don't all sound better than most DAT recorders is because
they're inside computers and don't have very well designed analog
interfaces, EMI suppression, or ground systems.

> yeah, maybe the bose wave system using the newest micro technology and
> servicable d/a can replace
> all mastering setups..........., and the noise canceling headphones

I like my noise cancelling headphones (but they're Sennheiser, not
Bose).

> don't forget to highly compress all the audio, that's how it's done
> now.

This is not what we're talking about, SIR.

Are you really Phil Allison?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 8:20:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"dale" wrote:
> >Too bad you have to sacrafice the word clock, though, but if
> >it was going to live with the Jukebox, that's not a concern.
>
> why ?...... (the weakest link?)
>
> >The D/A is quite good. The A/D is serviceable by today's standards
> >(and equal to or better than most
>
> (CHEAP ?)
>
> >DAT machines, mostly just because it's newer.)
> >micro-technology improves a whole lot in a ten year period.
>
> so the sansui amp with the micro intergrated chips will improve the
> sound of my Linn monitors????
> (it's newer technology then the mono block naim...)
>
> yeah, maybe the bose wave system using the newest micro technology and
> servicable d/a can replace
> all mastering setups..........., and the noise canceling headphones
> ......
>

I think you missed Mike's point. D/A and A/D is something that has gotten a
lot better over time so even a really cheapo contemporary converter is
likely to be as good or better than a good converter from 10 years ago.

>
> don't forget to highly compress all the audio, that's how it's done
> now.

That's how it was done 10 years ago too.

-jw
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 9:51:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< Interesting... do they record with any amplification?>>

I brought a PA into Skywalker's scoring stage when we re-recorded Purple Haze
for a Nonesuch compilation in the 90's, but other than that there's no
amplification in the recording sessions. For a future recording of Kronos' take
on Hendrix's take on the Star Spangled Banner I'll bring in a set of Marshall
JCM800's.

<< Is it just so they're
loud or for another effect?>>

The difference between the PA on & the PA muted during a Kronos sound check is
generally too small to show up on an SPL meter, but it's clearly audible as a
timbre & presence effect. The artform that is the string quartet evolved when
the performance venue was the salon, a large living room. String quartets were
not designed to play in symphony halls. Symphony orchestras were designed to
play in symphony halls. To my aesthetic, the sound of the Kronos Quartet is all
about the incredible detail & warmth perceivable in relative proximity to the
instruments, like what you hear when they play in a living room size space. The
experience of what occurs with the air pressure in that situation is wonderful
& absolutely does not exist in a thousand+ seat performing arts center
auditorium. My work, as I see it, is to recreate the living room presence in
the big hall.

<<The only Kronos record I have is "White Man Sleeps" (1987) which seems
pretty acoustic.>>

White Man Sleeps is straight ahead purist acoustic.

<< I can't remember whether they had SR the one time I
saw/heard them (mid/late '80s somewhere).>>

That's about the time they started working on the amplification idea, but
probably before they were regularly employing an engineer.
Scott Fraser
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 12:53:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

scotfraser@aol.com (ScotFraser) wrote in
news:20041219135103.09790.00001438@mb-m20.aol.com:

> <<The only Kronos record I have is "White Man Sleeps" (1987) which
> seems pretty acoustic.>>
>
> White Man Sleeps is straight ahead purist acoustic.
>
> << I can't remember whether they had SR the one time I
> saw/heard them (mid/late '80s somewhere).>>
>
> That's about the time they started working on the amplification idea,
> but probably before they were regularly employing an engineer.
> Scott Fraser

So, Scott. Name for us (who have no Kronos) your favorite albums and why.
Sounds like a great Christmas present.
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 1:59:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"ScotFraser" wrote:
> << Interesting... do they record with any amplification?>>
>
> I brought a PA into Skywalker's scoring stage when we re-recorded Purple
Haze
> for a Nonesuch compilation in the 90's, but other than that there's no
> amplification in the recording sessions. For a future recording of Kronos'
take
> on Hendrix's take on the Star Spangled Banner I'll bring in a set of
Marshall
> JCM800's.
>
> << Is it just so they're
> loud or for another effect?>>
>
> The difference between the PA on & the PA muted during a Kronos sound
check is
> generally too small to show up on an SPL meter, but it's clearly audible
as a
> timbre & presence effect. The artform that is the string quartet evolved
when
> the performance venue was the salon, a large living room. String quartets
were
> not designed to play in symphony halls. Symphony orchestras were designed
to
> play in symphony halls. To my aesthetic, the sound of the Kronos Quartet
is all
> about the incredible detail & warmth perceivable in relative proximity to
the
> instruments, like what you hear when they play in a living room size
space. The
> experience of what occurs with the air pressure in that situation is
wonderful
> & absolutely does not exist in a thousand+ seat performing arts center
> auditorium. My work, as I see it, is to recreate the living room presence
in
> the big hall.


Interesting. Thank you. That's not something I'd ever have thought of.

-jw
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 1:05:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Years ago when I ran sound for a living I was hired by a composer to
run PA for some performances. These were mixed quartets, octets etc. I
had my own score for the PA and had to count etc. The PA was treated as
another instrument. I would have AMP CELLO starting on the 'and of 2'
or 'add echo basoon' etc etc. It was a really interesting and
gratifying set of gigs.
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 5:23:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< So, Scott. Name for us (who have no Kronos) your favorite albums and why.
Sounds like a great Christmas present.
>>



Well, the one I'm mixing this week, but that won't be in stores before
Christmas.
Let's see, where to start. How about the Gorecki 1st & 2nd Quartets, those are
pretty damn cool, in a mystic Eastern European sort of way, as is the Vasks
Quartet #4. Early Music is an interesting collection, contrasting Machaut,
Purcell & Hildegard with Moondog, Partch & Cage. I always liked the set of 4
Glass quartets, if you like his sort of thing, & some of this is much more
rhapsodic than some of his more motoric stuff. If you like Feldman, (and who
doesn't?) their recording of his Piano & String Quartet is really sublime.
Their disc of Crumb's Black Angels is somewhat of a landmark, which also
includes the Shostakovich #8.
There's really a ton of great stuff, but the truth is, I don't listen to their
recordings often because I hear them live all the time, & to me that's the real
experience. Nothing sounds like the instruments in the same room.
Scott Fraser
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 5:25:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< Years ago when I ran sound for a living I was hired by a composer to
run PA for some performances. These were mixed quartets, octets etc. I
had my own score for the PA and had to count etc. The PA was treated as
another instrument. I would have AMP CELLO starting on the 'and of 2'
or 'add echo basoon' etc etc. It was a really interesting and
gratifying set of gigs.>>

Who was the composer?



Scott Fraser
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 9:46:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Carey Carlan" <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message ...
>
> So, Scott. Name for us (who have no Kronos) your favorite albums and why.
> Sounds like a great Christmas present.
>


I'm not Scott, but I love listening to Kronos. (Scott does excellent work
with them, BTW).

My favorites are- Black Angeles- a landmark CD of any genre
"Short Stories"- some strange compositions, but a great disc (I love the
John Zorn piece on there)
"Dreams and Prayers of Isaac the Blind" Kronos does Klezmer
"Released" is a good collection of stuff they've done over the years, but
being a collection, you find that you want the whole piece on a couple
selections...
The Schnittke disc is also great if you like his music...

You can find something pretty amazing on just about all of their CDs- some
have more than others- but I would say that these are probably my favorites.

--Ben

--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 12:30:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Claire Shore was her name I believe.
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 1:53:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>Are you really Phil Allison?

no sir, I am not.

I have not resorted to foul language or personal attacks.

My newness to discussing this by typing is causing me to voice myself
wrong.

the terms adequate and serviceable resonate within me, like the WMD
for the war.

I enjoy Sheffield Lab's direct to disc recordings ( the Harry James!)
as they were direct to disc with minimal audio circuits, thus with less
electronic coloration.

and the a/d/a issue causes much coloration. I remember that at one
point the power supplies for the converters was in a separate enclosure
to insure that the environment they were in was clean.

A) is there an aesthetic difference between taping and recording ?

B) is not the choice of the jukebox by tapers more for it's size and
ability to run in a backpack? out of the way of the dancers and spilt
beverage?
C) because the manufactures claim quality differences, does this make
it true? much of the newest micro technology is for manufacturing at
a better price point, and the claim of sonic qualities by tests they
conduct have no relationship to the actual musicality of the product.

D) the V3 was presented as having a mlan option, has that happened?
dale
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 4:46:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

dale wrote:
>
> I enjoy Sheffield Lab's direct to disc recordings ( the Harry James!)
> as they were direct to disc with minimal audio circuits, thus with less
> electronic coloration.

As do I (and many others here.)




> B) is not the choice of the jukebox by tapers more for it's size and
> ability to run in a backpack? out of the way of the dancers and spilt
> beverage?

The choice was due to size, power consumption, availability of a digital input, and price. Until very recently, there was literally no suitable device available between the ~$300 NJB3 and the ~$10k Deva II. Suitable here means something that meets the aforementioned requirements and can record several hours of uncompressed stereo PCM on an internal hard disk.

At the moment there are a few more options on the market, most of which involve some of the same compromises accepted for use of the NJB3: Poor or no preamps, 16-bit only, flimsy connectors, poor or no metering, etc. AFAIK, the Sound Devices 722 has not shipped yet, so that leaves the 744T (at $4000) as the only real option for someone desiring a highly portable quality recording chain in one box. Oh, and the NJB3 is down to $139.99 now.




> C) because the manufactures claim quality differences, does this make
> it true? much of the newest micro technology is for manufacturing at
> a better price point, and the claim of sonic qualities by tests they
> conduct have no relationship to the actual musicality of the product.

I am speaking from my own experience--both with the NJB3 and with other products. Creative never really promoted the NJB3 as a recording device--it was just discovered by desperate users who did not want to invest in a dying format and had no real alternative.




> D) the V3 was presented as having a mlan option, has that happened?

I don't think so. How would this help?
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 4:51:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>
>
> > D) the V3 was presented as having a mlan option, has that
happened?
>
> I don't think so. How would this help?

it is a sub protocol to firewire and is part of osx core audio

dale
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 5:07:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

opps, did it again.

the v3 was my first choice but the firewire option was not available at
that time.
that would give me another sonic flavor to add to my uln2.

dale
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 12:17:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1103741636.578669.30330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> dallen@frognet.net writes:

> A) is there an aesthetic difference between taping and recording ?

If by "taping" you mean unofficially recording a concert, then I don't
know that there's an aesthetic difference between that and recording,
but I feel that there's an ethical difference. But let's not go there.
I don't even know how we got this close.

> B) is not the choice of the jukebox by tapers more for it's size and
> ability to run in a backpack? out of the way of the dancers and spilt
> beverage?

I suspect it's because their DAT recorders are all broken and it's
cheaper than getting the DAT fixed. Another reason for choice is that
when "taping" first started, copies of recordings were distributed by
mail on tape, through a "tree" distribution system - I send you a
copy, you make five copies and send them to your five "branches."
Setting up the trees on line was about all you could do at 2400 baud.
Today, the ease of putting an MP3 file on a server and discreetly
shouting "Come and get it!!!!" is attractive, and the Jukebox is a
convenient way of recording a reasonably good quality MP3 file for
distribution - easier than copying tapes and mailing them out.

> C) because the manufactures claim quality differences, does this make
> it true? much of the newest micro technology is for manufacturing at
> a better price point, and the claim of sonic qualities by tests they
> conduct have no relationship to the actual musicality of the product.

I wouldn't be surprised if you're correct, but a lot of newer, cheaper
things sound better than older, more expensive ones. I recorded
(legitimately, for hire, even) a lot of concerts with a Revox A700
(which I still have, and it still works pretty well). Today I'd do
them with the Jukebox and not even give a thought to whether the sound
quality of the Revox recordings would be better. They'd be different -
more noise, different flavors of distortion, but rather than trying to
say which was better overall, I'd be happy to say that both do the job
as well as it needs to be done.

> D) the V3 was presented as having a mlan option, has that happened?

I don't know. I would guess that before mLan, they'd do generic
Firewire since that interfaces with everybody's computers (or at least
everybody who has the port).

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 2:14:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

dale wrote:
> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>>
>>
>>> the V3 was presented as having a mlan option, has that happened?
>>
>> I don't think so. How would this help?
>
>
> it is a sub protocol to firewire and is part of osx core audio


I'm fully aware of what mLAN is. How does it help make the V3 more attractive or competitive in an ultra-portable recording situation?
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 12:50:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Kurt Albershardt <kurt@nv.net> wrote:

>At the moment there are a few more options on the market, most of which
>involve some of the same compromises accepted for use of the NJB3: Poor
>or no preamps, 16-bit only, flimsy connectors, poor or no metering,
>etc. AFAIK, the Sound Devices 722 has not shipped yet, so that leaves
>the 744T (at $4000) as the only real option for someone desiring a
>highly portable quality recording chain in one box. ...

If you can stand to use two small "boxes" that can be easily velcroed
together into one small box, you might consider our PDAudio system. It
records two tracks of 24/96 WAV files for around $900.

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
moskowit@core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912
!