Article: Sound Liaison - One Mic Recordings

[esldude]

20 minutes ago, miguelito said:

See my signature.

 

Or go to http://goo.gl/66fjxw

Okay.  Should have noticed that in the signature. 

 

Was curious as a data point of what you were listening over vs what I was listening over.  I'd think horns might sound a bit more forward, but I've not heard the Avantgarde.  The Revels I use in my video setup aren't forward or recessed that I can tell.  My Soundlabs are maybe a touch recessed vs some items though rather different overall.  So when checking how something was recorded I use the Revels as they are probably more similar to what most people have than the panels I have.  

[esldude]

1 hour ago, JoeWhip said:

I enjoy Chesky recordings also but they traditionally have more of a distant sound. Also, Chesky tends to record in churchs and larger spaces, much different that the large studio environment used in the SL recordings. Different strokes for different folks. I can and do enjoy both techniques. 

Yes just as you say.  I liked their recordings too.  I've not found the change in recording methodology an improvement to my ears listening over speakers.  You would expect them to sound different just about as they do.  

[STC]

On ‎6‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 11:01 PM, JoeWhip said:

 

View full article

 

 

Couldn't believe some of the comments here. Some people who go extra miles to get the best possible sound and in the process very unlikely to make profit like the big labels. Probably, they would do better with people who really appreciate music and SQ for what it is without prejudice. It amazes me that no whatsoever appreciation for their effort. There is nothing wrong with the recordings and even if it is then as "audiophiles" make them to sound good. 

 

Sometimes, when we are too familiarized with one type of the sound we tend to miss out on other equally good recordings.

[miguelito]

12 hours ago, STC said:

Couldn't believe some of the comments here. Some people who go extra miles to get the best possible sound and in the process very unlikely to make profit like the big labels. Probably, they would do better with people who really appreciate music and SQ for what it is without prejudice. It amazes me that no whatsoever appreciation for their effort. There is nothing wrong with the recordings and even if it is then as "audiophiles" make them to sound good. 

 

Sometimes, when we are too familiarized with one type of the sound we tend to miss out on other equally good recordings.

Two things:

1- Yes, it is a bit ruthless, but honest I think. Some people will dig a high quality recording and be more open minded - even tolerant of less than stellar musical performance - and that is ok, for them.

2- I don’t think anyone posting opinions on this thread had any mean intent.

[Kal Rubinson]

3 hours ago, miguelito said:

Two things:

1- Yes, it is a bit ruthless, but honest I think. Some people will dig a high quality recording and be more open minded - even tolerant of less than stellar musical performance - and that is ok, for them.

2- I don’t think anyone posting opinions on this thread had any mean intent.

Agreed.  When I was younger, I was seduced by Sheffield D2D recordings because, in contrast to most of the competition, they were audibly superior.  However, I have disposed of them over the years and don't miss them.  These days, I don't have the patience to tolerate music (content and/or performance) that I don't care about.   

 

So, let me say that, while I encourage and admire the efforts of those who take extraordinary efforts to make recordings as near perfect as they can be, my interest is academic.

[oso]

Thanks Joe for taking the time to write such an informative review, highly appreciated. I've been a fan of this label for a long time. Great there is still a few people left in this world who likes good and well played jazz.

What I really like about these recordings besides the superior S.Q. is as Joe writes; 

Quote

Finally, the musicians really need to be tight and on their games.

 

These musicians plays with all they've got and there is no fixing it in the mix. That energy and realness really jumps out of my speakers.

So in other words it is the ''imperfection'' that makes these recordings so fantastic.  

[STC]

6 hours ago, oso said:

These musicians plays with all they've got and there is no fixing it in the mix.

 

Nope. They added reverb, EQ and compression. 

[rando]

Judging by the music forum SL single mic recordings are not going unappreciated.  Which to me suggests they might age well and find a place in the experimental category of Jazz. 

 

Despite an obvious lack of musicianship. 

[HIFI]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

Nope. They added reverb, EQ and compression. 

So I’m curious....

 

 I think it is very possible there could be some “judicious “ use of EQ.  I would expect some compression.  Are you reaching when you say “added reverb”?  I just don’t see how you can say that sitting in your chair as you listen unless you were very familiar with SL’s recording studio. Maybe it’s your listening environment issue?

[STC]

1 hour ago, HIFI said:

 I just don’t see how you can say that sitting in your chair as you listen unless you were very familiar with SL’s recording studio.

 

Mmmm....that means one can never tell from the recording with actual prior knowledge of the acoustics signature of the recording venue?  

[mansr]

4 hours ago, HIFI said:

So I’m curious....

 

I think it is very possible there could be some “judicious “ use of EQ.  I would expect some compression.  Are you reaching when you say “added reverb”?  I just don’t see how you can say that sitting in your chair as you listen unless you were very familiar with SL’s recording studio. Maybe it’s your listening environment issue?

In the article, Frans de Rond is quoted thus:

After recording we add a bit of reverb, little EQ and a tiny bit of compression to smooth things out, but we keep everything to a minimum.

[blue2]

4 hours ago, HIFI said:

So I’m curious....

 

 I think it is very possible there could be some “judicious “ use of EQ.  I would expect some compression.  Are you reaching when you say “added reverb”?  I just don’t see how you can say that sitting in your chair as you listen unless you were very familiar with SL’s recording studio. Maybe it’s your listening environment issue?

Read the article. Quote from Frans de Rond: "After recording we add a bit of reverb, little EQ and a tiny bit of compression to smooth things out, but we keep everything to a minimum."

Must say I was disappointed to read that as I thought there was no processing whatsoever. SL did issue one or two tracks for free in all resolutions available so comparison could be made. Would be interesting if they did the same for the OneMic recordings with/without processing.

[STC]

That’s expectation bias. It also shows DSP or EQ is not bad nor detectable. The recording is just a sound like a real instrument. Do the necessary so that it will sound best in your room. 

[esldude]

Maybe that is another reason older Chesky sounds better to me.  They used a pair of figure 8's or a Soundfield set to figure 8's.  Recorded straight in with no processing.  With binaural they have some process to make it sound alright over speakers.  I don't know what it does, but it certainly isn't mic straight to the recording medium. 

 

I too was disappointed in SL using EQ, reverb and compression.  I'd really like to hear what their $7250 microphone sounds like.  I might could forgive them using EQ, but reverb and compression mean you don't hear where they recorded.  Then again maybe if you could hear both you'd prefer what they did. 

[STC]

15 minutes ago, esldude said:

Maybe that is another reason older Chesky sounds better to me.  They used a pair of figure 8's or a Soundfield set to figure 8's.  Recorded straight in with no processing.  With binaural they have some process to make it sound alright over speakers.  I don't know what it does, but it certainly isn't mic straight to the recording medium. 

 

I too was disappointed in SL using EQ, reverb and compression.  I'd really like to hear what their $7250 microphone sounds like.  I might could forgive them using EQ, but reverb and compression mean you don't hear where they recorded.  Then again maybe if you could hear both you'd prefer what they did. 

 

What do you expect them to do with a MS mic?

 

There is nothing wrong with Chesky binaural recordings. It is different so maybe for some they are not used to since IMO we have adopted to perceive stereo sound and decode them to be reality. 

 

But it if you ever get to retrieve the timing and level difference correctly, you will never want to listen to others. The filter is just some attenuation of the HF to eliminate the pinna effect. I wonder why they are NOT making pinnaless dummy head recording which will make the correction unnecessary. 

 

 

[mansr]

15 minutes ago, esldude said:

Maybe that is another reason older Chesky sounds better to me.  They used a pair of figure 8's or a Soundfield set to figure 8's.  Recorded straight in with no processing.  With binaural they have some process to make it sound alright over speakers.  I don't know what it does, but it certainly isn't mic straight to the recording medium. 

Aren't Chesky using tube gear with all the distortion that brings, or am I confusing them with someone else?

 

15 minutes ago, esldude said:

I too was disappointed in SL using EQ, reverb and compression.  I'd really like to hear what their $7250 microphone sounds like.  I might could forgive them using EQ, but reverb and compression mean you don't hear where they recorded.  Then again maybe if you could hear both you'd prefer what they did. 

Maybe if someone asked nicely, they'd provide an unprocessed sample.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Aren't Chesky using tube gear with all the distortion that brings, or am I confusing them with someone else?

 

Maybe if someone asked nicely, they'd provide an unprocessed sample.

Chesky did use tube gear at the beginning.  I think it was stuff Timothy de Paravicini  modified for them.  I think they even recorded to high speed reel initially. Then at one time it was some Moscode FET based gear.  They also originally used an AKC C24 tubed stereo condenser microphone.  Later switching to a Calrec Soundfield microphone when they switched to Moscode electronics.  

 

Yes, maybe SL would provide an unprocessed sample.  That would be rather nice. 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

What do you expect them to do with a MS mic?

 

There is nothing wrong with Chesky binaural recordings. It is different so maybe for some they are not used to since IMO we have adopted to perceive stereo sound and decode them to be reality. 

 

But it if you ever get to retrieve the timing and level difference correctly, you will never want to listen to others. The filter is just some attenuation of the HF to eliminate the pinna effect. I wonder why they are NOT making pinnaless dummy head recording which will make the correction unnecessary. 

 

 

Do you know what the Soundfield microphones can do?  They aren't an M-S microphone though that is one of the possibilities.  I don't know if Chesky currently is using those.  At one time he was doing M-S 8's plus an omni via the Soundfield to create multi-channel recordings.  I think they are just doing the B&K 4100 binaural recordings currently with the BAACH process.  

 

You can tell me how great binaural is all you want.  Maybe I've got a way out in the tails HRTF, but they plain don't work well for me.  I believe others who say they do.  I wished they did for me.  They just don't.  I would assume if I used my own in ear mics like Mitchco has done it would work for me.  And probably be awful for most other people.  

 

If you were referring to the Josephson C700S as a single MS microphone, well that is one use of it. It can also do Ambisonic recording if you process it right.  Or do multi-channel the same way the Soundfield does.  They chose to use MS, and that is fine, I like MS.  But the reverb and compression I like less.  It can be done well and tastefully, and I don't find theirs was tasteless, I just would like to hear it without that.  The EQ if not too extreme bothers me much less.  

 

SL may also be doing more that is less easy to explain.  The people who make that C700S suggest a good thing to do is combining the low end of the omni pattern with the high end of the birectional or cardioid pattern by EQ'ing them and blending them together.  And to do compression with separate settings on each.  All of that can get complex in a hurry.  Whether it is worthwhile or not probably depends, but in a close up recording it might well be.  Oh, and if someone is wondering, you can after the fact pick your patterns with that microphone.  Including picking more than one pattern and blending them. Which is like being able to go back and change the microphone you used for the recording after it was done. 

[STC]

9 minutes ago, esldude said:

If you were referring to the Josephson C700S as a single MS microphone

 

I was referring to the recording by SL using the mic. 

 

[HIFI]

I must say I’m a bit surprised at some comments and criticism.

 

I feel blessed to have a recording label that, at any level, attempts to provide a listening experience close to an original performance. The ALTERNATIVE to this is Far Far more popular in delivered music available today.

 

i don’t have a sound recording engineering degree but I do think some compression has to be manipulated to deliver a live recorded production to your HiFi system.  I’m not sure if any EG is required for the purpose of delivering a live recorded production to your HiFi. Added reverb....I certainly have heard live performances and delivered live recording performances that have way too much, even overly artificial reverb.

 

I concede to any critic here that has the PERFECT listening environment.  Otherwise your room is adding/subtracting plenty.  Therefore you can’t hear “just” the original recorded material. 

[esldude]

41 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I was referring to the recording by SL using the mic. 

 

Okay.  That mike will put out 3 signals.  If you record them, you can pick any pattern and direction after you are done recording.  It can do Ambisonics though without the Z or vertical portion.  If you combine that with some Harpex software, you can even to some extent emulate near coincident miking.  Though how accurately this works I'm not sure of, but reports are it does a good job.  

 

http://www.josephson.com/pdf/srs7ug.pdf

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

That mike will put out 3 signals.  If you record them, you can pick any pattern and direction after you are done recording. 

 

I am no fan of any particular recording type. As long they are good stereo, they are good enough for me. 

 

Lately, I am more inclined for spot mic orchestra. In fact, for fidelity and recreation of the acoustics event I find it easier to work with spot mic technique which preserves all the micro details of the direct sound. 

 

In the early 2000s, I was interested in Ambisonics which I got confused with Ambiophonics but abandoned them when I realized non of my genre will ever be in the former format. I doubt it will ever catch up. 

 

Edit:- In the case of ms mic, you still have the freedom to arbitrarily assign the width which IMO can never be true representation of the acoustics event. 

 

 

[ednaz]

I see a lot of people talking about disappointment about added EQ and reverb. I've spent a fair amount of time in quite a few recording studios - inside where the musicians are, and then listening in the control room after takes. Most studio environments are incredibly dry sounding. Unpleasantly dry, and artificial sounding. We really don't hear pure instruments in any real world setting, it's always instruments in a space. Extremely common to "wet up" the recording with reverb.

 

A lot of effort when building out recording studios goes into absorbing sound to minimize bleed and crosstalk problems. They engineer away the space so that it's not part of the recording. Very few studios are designed for that little bit of liveliness that makes things sound alive. Rudy Van Gelder's studio in NJ is an exception - he designed the space so that it would be a little bit alive. I've been inside during sessions and it's so much more pleasant sounding than most studios. 

 

Chesky's albums sound different because he's recording in spaces with their own reverb characteristics. The rooms are as much a part of the recording as the musical instruments.

[HIFI]

On 6/25/2019 at 3:51 PM, miguelito said:

I've listened to a sample track from Sound Liaison: Carmen Gomes's "A Fool For You". Comparing this to Amber Rubarth's Chesky release "Songs From The 17th Ward" is a no-brainer: Chesky is much better in my system (and the music itself is great). To be specific, try "A Kiss To Build A Dream On" in this album...

I purchased Amber Rubarth’s “Songs From The 17th Ward” based on your recommendation for comparison and I like the artist.  I have other Amber Rubarth albums.  

 

My listening observation is simple .  .  . I hear the original room space in both recordings and they both have their unique signature. I prefer the Sound Liaison recording as for the reason my speakers disappear completely.  

 

I was was thinking maybe the smaller listening room I am in may have caused the difference in experience.  Then I went to the MA recording you referenced, Sera Una Noche.  It’s a big room recording and I experience, in my listening room, large space sound and invisible speakers. 

[oso]

I am very happy that Frans De Rood with his golden ears and years of experience and know how 

Quote

add a bit of reverb, little EQ and a tiny bit of compression

 

That is why all those Sound Liaison  recordings sounds so good.

 

However, I would find it very interesting if they would release a couple of "pure" tracks for comparing.