tube-vds
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
- Messages
- 347
- Thread Author
- #1
Multi-track recording in classical recordings - the source of a lot of trouble?
Short version: Deutsche Grammophon blames „the low dynamic range of the gramophone recording (40 dB)“ for having to use multi-recording technology, to make everything „clear enough“ for the listener.
In my opinion the multi-track analog tape recording, adds a lot of noise to the recording, destroys the real dynamics of the live performance and makes it sound „put together“ and harsh. In a multi-microphone recordings the microphones have to be placed very close to the sound source - because otherwise you get timing problems, echoes and even doppler effects. This close positioning makes the actual sound of the instruments harsh. Today they still use multi-channel recording technology on classical recordings. And the digital technology even made possible to use up to 256 channels. It seems many sound engineers do not like what they hear in a concert hall. Do we actually have the right people in the recording studios?
I listened to the 1971 Deutsche Grammophon Mahler Symphonien box, with all 10 Symphonies.
This box was graded Mint and is in perfect condition. I think the records have in fact never been played before. So why am I so disappointed with the sound? It’s noisy, has kind of unnatural acoustics, instrument groups sound harsh and are not at the right place, and the choir sounds not nice, the placement is also artificial (very direct and stuck in the right corner). The recording lacks dynamics and sounds kind of „put together“ - in fact it is. Interesting enough the conductor and the sound engineer make a statement about the „new stereophonic sound technology“ - as they call it.
The booklet has not only a lot of information about the Mahler symphonies, but also some very interesting information from both the conductor and the sound engineer. In the Part „Mahler’s symphonies in stereo“ some key information about the recording process has been written down.
In the interview they blame the „gramophone recording „which allows for a dynamic range of only 40 decibels“ for having to make separate recordings of individual instruments and rearrange them in the recording. For a more "clear sound" as they call it.
I have many analog stereo recordings on vinyl from the 60“ that are dead quiet and have great dynamics of over 60 dB on my system. So this 40 dB can not be the whole story.
And in my opinion, the interview actually makes clear to me where a lot of problems concerning the modern unsatisfying Hifi-reproduction of a classical orchestra performance started.
History: In the end 50“ and 60“ the first stereo recordings were done mostly with a Decca tree or some interpretations of this technology. 3 microphones were used: one for the left channel, one of the right channel and an extra microphone for a better centre sound. The sound engineer would take a lot of time on the positioning of the microphones, the recording level was actually set by letting the orchestra play the loudest part and using that level for the biasing of the recording setup. They would hardy change the sound levels in the recording - only when things got to silent they would go up with the level for less noise.
These recordings with very simple technology in fact tried to reproduce the actual sound of the the concert hall. And of course it has a lot of ambience and sometimes also the noise of moving chairs, moving musicians and other typical „live event imperfections“. You could in fact say that the concert hall was the mixer and the compressor.
There’s a lot of information available on the web for people that want to read more about this.
Now back to the 1971 Deutsche Grammophone recording. This record uses a multi microphone recording with an analog tape multitrack recorder. Sadly it does not say how many channels were used. I guess they use about 24 channels. The engineer and the conductor think they have a good reason for that: „The aim is solely to create conditions under which listeners to the recording can hear more clearly than at a concert performance what Mahler actually wrote, and can thus more fully understand his intentions.“ It continues with „that the clarity which the listener needs is not always obtainable in a concert hall“, „that stereophony brings out all the contrapuntal points which are sometimes lost in a hall“. „Stereophony has in fact give Mahler a great deal of acoustical assistance.“
They continue by stating that in many ways „this stereophonic reproduction is superior to a concert performance“. „It is naturally impossible, in a 2-channel reproduction, to represent 3-dimensional acoustical events“.
The interviewers seem to have a problem with what they hear in the concert hall. Are these people the right ones for this job anyway? The interview continues with other statements from what I would call „the road to audio hell“. What about this: „The distant orchestra played in a separate room without any audible or visual connection with the hall. A room with a dry, almost dead acoustic was chosen“. The audio horror continues: „the cowbells were played in a room adjoining the orchestral platform of the hall, the required changes in their volume of sound being obtained by opening the communicating doors to a greater or lesser extent.“
About the recording of choir (which sounds to unnatural) they give the explanation for that themselves: „The soloist were distributed across the entire breadth of the recording area, some of them at the front of the platform, some further back with the chorus, and others at the sides, so that they would be differentiated both in placing and in sound.“ „In the second, third and fourth symphonies the solo vocal parts were treated in different ways according to their individual characteristics. It is therefore quite possible for the same voice to sound different in the different movements of a symphony. This is not by any means a regrettable technical mishap, but a deliberate means of expression achieved through the medium of recording“.
So what is the result? Well I simply can not believe that somebody actually likes this recording. And even if you would like this artificial way of listening to the performance - the very noisy multitrack tape recorder actually brings in a lot of new problems. Indeed the dynamics of the recording are dramatically reduced, but not by the LP, but the Multi-track tape recorder! Todays digital studios of course have no noise, but I still do not like the artificial sound of the modern recordings. If you don’t like the sound of an orchestra in a concert hall, maybe you should not do a recording of that event in the first place!
Offcourse it's just my opinion. And I like different opinions. So what do you think?
Short version: Deutsche Grammophon blames „the low dynamic range of the gramophone recording (40 dB)“ for having to use multi-recording technology, to make everything „clear enough“ for the listener.
In my opinion the multi-track analog tape recording, adds a lot of noise to the recording, destroys the real dynamics of the live performance and makes it sound „put together“ and harsh. In a multi-microphone recordings the microphones have to be placed very close to the sound source - because otherwise you get timing problems, echoes and even doppler effects. This close positioning makes the actual sound of the instruments harsh. Today they still use multi-channel recording technology on classical recordings. And the digital technology even made possible to use up to 256 channels. It seems many sound engineers do not like what they hear in a concert hall. Do we actually have the right people in the recording studios?
I listened to the 1971 Deutsche Grammophon Mahler Symphonien box, with all 10 Symphonies.
This box was graded Mint and is in perfect condition. I think the records have in fact never been played before. So why am I so disappointed with the sound? It’s noisy, has kind of unnatural acoustics, instrument groups sound harsh and are not at the right place, and the choir sounds not nice, the placement is also artificial (very direct and stuck in the right corner). The recording lacks dynamics and sounds kind of „put together“ - in fact it is. Interesting enough the conductor and the sound engineer make a statement about the „new stereophonic sound technology“ - as they call it.
The booklet has not only a lot of information about the Mahler symphonies, but also some very interesting information from both the conductor and the sound engineer. In the Part „Mahler’s symphonies in stereo“ some key information about the recording process has been written down.
In the interview they blame the „gramophone recording „which allows for a dynamic range of only 40 decibels“ for having to make separate recordings of individual instruments and rearrange them in the recording. For a more "clear sound" as they call it.
I have many analog stereo recordings on vinyl from the 60“ that are dead quiet and have great dynamics of over 60 dB on my system. So this 40 dB can not be the whole story.
And in my opinion, the interview actually makes clear to me where a lot of problems concerning the modern unsatisfying Hifi-reproduction of a classical orchestra performance started.
History: In the end 50“ and 60“ the first stereo recordings were done mostly with a Decca tree or some interpretations of this technology. 3 microphones were used: one for the left channel, one of the right channel and an extra microphone for a better centre sound. The sound engineer would take a lot of time on the positioning of the microphones, the recording level was actually set by letting the orchestra play the loudest part and using that level for the biasing of the recording setup. They would hardy change the sound levels in the recording - only when things got to silent they would go up with the level for less noise.
These recordings with very simple technology in fact tried to reproduce the actual sound of the the concert hall. And of course it has a lot of ambience and sometimes also the noise of moving chairs, moving musicians and other typical „live event imperfections“. You could in fact say that the concert hall was the mixer and the compressor.
There’s a lot of information available on the web for people that want to read more about this.
Now back to the 1971 Deutsche Grammophone recording. This record uses a multi microphone recording with an analog tape multitrack recorder. Sadly it does not say how many channels were used. I guess they use about 24 channels. The engineer and the conductor think they have a good reason for that: „The aim is solely to create conditions under which listeners to the recording can hear more clearly than at a concert performance what Mahler actually wrote, and can thus more fully understand his intentions.“ It continues with „that the clarity which the listener needs is not always obtainable in a concert hall“, „that stereophony brings out all the contrapuntal points which are sometimes lost in a hall“. „Stereophony has in fact give Mahler a great deal of acoustical assistance.“
They continue by stating that in many ways „this stereophonic reproduction is superior to a concert performance“. „It is naturally impossible, in a 2-channel reproduction, to represent 3-dimensional acoustical events“.
The interviewers seem to have a problem with what they hear in the concert hall. Are these people the right ones for this job anyway? The interview continues with other statements from what I would call „the road to audio hell“. What about this: „The distant orchestra played in a separate room without any audible or visual connection with the hall. A room with a dry, almost dead acoustic was chosen“. The audio horror continues: „the cowbells were played in a room adjoining the orchestral platform of the hall, the required changes in their volume of sound being obtained by opening the communicating doors to a greater or lesser extent.“
About the recording of choir (which sounds to unnatural) they give the explanation for that themselves: „The soloist were distributed across the entire breadth of the recording area, some of them at the front of the platform, some further back with the chorus, and others at the sides, so that they would be differentiated both in placing and in sound.“ „In the second, third and fourth symphonies the solo vocal parts were treated in different ways according to their individual characteristics. It is therefore quite possible for the same voice to sound different in the different movements of a symphony. This is not by any means a regrettable technical mishap, but a deliberate means of expression achieved through the medium of recording“.
So what is the result? Well I simply can not believe that somebody actually likes this recording. And even if you would like this artificial way of listening to the performance - the very noisy multitrack tape recorder actually brings in a lot of new problems. Indeed the dynamics of the recording are dramatically reduced, but not by the LP, but the Multi-track tape recorder! Todays digital studios of course have no noise, but I still do not like the artificial sound of the modern recordings. If you don’t like the sound of an orchestra in a concert hall, maybe you should not do a recording of that event in the first place!
Offcourse it's just my opinion. And I like different opinions. So what do you think?
