Classic Recording Techniques for a High Resolution Future
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 11. 2018
- Doug Fearn and the Hazelrigg Brothers discuss classic recording techniques using ribbon microphones and vacuum tube mic preamps using a minimal number of mics to record a jazz trio directly to DSD. Learn the history of ribbon microphones and the Blumlein configuration for stereo recording. The event was organized by the Boston AES and hosted by Futura Productions. Video recordings of Boston AES Events are published at / audiobuildersworkshop "
- Jak na to + styl
![If you can't hear this then you're not an audiophile [See description for link to followup video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/48PxwspDvrE/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for all the nice comments. Much appreciated. I am glad people are finding this useful. More videos in the works.
Hey, great video and very enlightening. I was hoping you'd discuss the high-end freq. response of Ribbon Mics in contrast to the video's emphasis placed on very high frequency information and sample rates necessary for the "Feel good" factor. Have you tried Earthworks? They used to boast similar psycho-acoustic properties.
@@dtenor201 Thanks for the comments. It is true that the response of most ribbon mics is down a few dB by 20kHz. I do not find this objectionable, since if you need response that high, ribbon mics take eq very well. Generally, in the mix, I will apply 2-4dB of high-end boost (on the mix bus) to restore the sparkle we are used to. I think a lot of the problem is that we are accustomed to the boosted high-end of condenser mics. Despite their shortcomings, the pattern of ribbon mics and their low distortion are enough of an advantage to make them my preferred type.
Agreed. I’m now investing in ribbons in my home studio.
That very enjoyable, as always. Thank you, Doug, George, and Geoff and the rest of the production crew.
Thanks so much for the presentation, sorry I am just seeing it now. I have had a growing interest in both ribbon mics and Blumlein recording technique and this sealed the deal for me.
I understood NOTHING about what was this all about (I am a graphic artist) but listened to the whole talk for the pleasure of hearing Mr. Fearn's voice and eloquence. Thank you, Sir, so relaxing!
Thanks, Oscar. I am flattered that you would listen all the way through despite my talk being a bit different from what you do. But graphic arts and recording share a lot of fundamental principles. You might like my podcast, "My Take On Music Recording," available on all podcasting outlets.
@DWFearn
Doug, I'm late to the party, but are snippets or the full recordings of this performance and demonstration still available anywhere for purchase and/or free download in DSD & 24-bit PCM formats?
Thanks
Very educational and eye-opening recording - thank you for posting.
I randomly subscribed to this channel not thinking much of it. I think I was impressed by the control room install video. When I saw this video title pop up, I couldn’t believe it. The entire video blew my mind. I’ve been looking for material on this exact topic and not finding anything suitable. I can’t thank you enough!!!
Great stuff. Thank you
Amazing!!!!!!
Just stumbled across this vid and it's really made my evening. Great speakers, great attitude, great music. Refreshing that there's still an interest in making music to a high sonic calibre without a computer screen involved...
Glad you liked it. That was a fun evening. We may do it again soon.
Amazing Video and very Helpful!!!
Thanks
This is great content- thank you
This was so Interesting. And great great players. Thank you from Italy :)
bardzo pożyteczny wykład dziękujęmy bardzo
Love those arrangements! The sound was great even though CZcams has some artifacts in compression. So cool!
DROP DEAD LEGS!! Great job. Very interesting presentation.
Thanks! And credit for the music goes to the Hazelrigg Brothers Trio!
Thanks.
Thank you very much, it was very interesting and useful for me. Enjoyed also the music very much - really great sound of that recording! Best greetings! TT
Van Halen! 🤟🏻 Great talk and the music was wonderful, thank you. Will definitely look into DSD along the road...
Thank you.
You guys are awesome. I want to hear a dsd recording!!
In case you haven’t heard one already, it’s magical. At my university we have a Tascam DA3000 and I took a course on hi-fi audio. We recorded a piano using a pair of peluso CEMC-6’s in cardioid set up in a spaced pair ran into a jensen twin servo mic preamp inot the da3000 (it doesn’t have onboard mic preamps) and to say the least it was one of the most incredible things I’ve ever heard
Thanks to all of you who took the time to comment. Your feedback is very much appreciated!
Vince Guraldi plays Hendrix! Ha! Sounds awesome. Thanks for the video!
Holy shit! What a sound!!!!! More musical than any multi-mic setup...
Great video, like others on your channel. Keep up the good work! Don't think that there aren't people who appreciate your effort greatly! Greetings from Croatia! :)
I agree, another one here from Croatia.
Sounds better in headphones, as you'd expect with a coincident technique. On monitors I found it too broad and wasn't keen on the early reflections. That's why I prefer A-B over X-Y, it translates better.
Great version of Manic Depression!
So many things you have shared and postulated are tremendously in line with my experience. I moved to a DSD/DXD (Pyramix) based studio approach about 2 years ago, where much of thd popular (Prog, rock, etc) and all of the classical (voice, instrumental and such) is done at DSD128 and 256. The ability to mix and master well into the night with substantially less need for breaks is significantly increased. Even our new engineer was amazed and couldn’t figure out his lack of physical and emotional fatigue, until we told him about what the DSD was, and possibly why he didn’t get the same ability with PCM mixes in the same studio rooms. Also, one interesting side effect is that the DSD playback has on numerous occasions made our dog look and bark at the source when someone speaks on the track, which NEVER once happened even at 192/384K PCM.
I and my colleagues have noticed the same things, including the reaction with my dogs! if my dogs hear my voice on a DSD recording, they will look around to figure out how I can be in two places at once. And the low-fatigue aspect seems to persist even after conversion to PCM or even MP3 or similar. Our ears/brain seem to process the audio differently: DSD and analog seem natural, while PCM does not.
It used to be after a long session, the last thing I wanted to do was go home and listen to it again. With DSD, I never get tired of listening to a good performance.
I have no science to back this up, just personal experience.
@@DWFearnHazelriggIndustries There is enough *science* to back up that you are *wrong*.
But a simple AB(X)-Test will show that you won't hear any difference between any "High Resolution"-Format OR CD-Format. Maybe your dog can help you thou. :-)
@@hafibeat834 Music is an emotional experience, and what we hear with DSD is a lack of irritants inherent in PCM digital. If the sound of 16-bit PCM sounds great to you, I cannot argue with that. DSD is not for everyone, mostly due to its practical limitations. But our experience has been that DSD feels better. And that's been consistent in our blind tests.
Our mic preamps are within a few dB of the theoretical minimum noise, so I don't think noise is an issue. This is not a guitar amp. Also, vacuum tube circuitry noise tends to be greatest at low frequencies, where our hearing is less sensitive, and the noise is masked by the music. Solid-state noise tends to rise with frequency, making it more audible.
Ribbon mics have a lower output than condenser mics, but otherwise do not add any noise. We prefer ribbons due to the inherent distortion that is evident in all condenser mics.
@@DWFearnHazelriggIndustries 1. "lack of irritants inherent in PCM digital" is a bold, totally unproved claim. It's not worth to discuss this.
2. "that's been consistent in our blind tests." That's not possible, since PCM & DSD will sound totally equal - scientifical proven.
If it "feels" better, you are not doing a proper ABX-Test. Music is about emotions, yes, but not converters or any piece of reproduction gear.
3. Ribbon mics will add noise as any microphone (why do i have to tell you this in the first place?) - but a lot more than a condenser-mic due to their low sensitivity (ever heard of "Brownian motion"?) that will become audible in low volume recordings. So no, they add noise - lot more than your preamp.
Your Tube-Pre BTW is fine enough for these mics, but will come to it's limit with very low noise mics like a MKH or TLM.
4 - This is the best for me: "inherent distortion that is evident in all condenser mics" That's complete nonsense. What kind of distortion?
Every mic will add distortion at very high volumes, every mikrophone will add "phase distortion", but Condensers are simply the best way to avoid distortion. Of course, Ribbons have a special sound that one might like. But when it comes to "high resolution" you have to start with the source.
Please, don't confuse artistic choices with fundamentals of recording. You can't fight physics.
@@hafibeat834 I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I appreciate your scientific approach, but after nearly 6 decades of recording, my main goal is always to minimize irritants. What bothers me may not bother you. We are all different. We make recordings to convert an artist's vision to an effective listening experience. Technology is involved, and we all gravitate to the sound that feels best to us. Our job is to provide a great listener experience, no matter how we get there.
I sold most of my condenser mics because the distortion was getting on my nerves. As I improved the recording chain, these things became apparent. Probably most people would not be bothered by the distortion, but I don't like it. I have an MKH8050 which has much lower distortion, so I continue to use it. Otherwise, I prefer the sound of ribbon mics for their lack of distortion and more realistic capture. People make great recordings with condenser mics, so that technology is certainly viable. They just don't fit my style most of the time.
Oh god, the part of "I'm about to ruin your life... once you hear digital artefacts, you can never unhear them" hit home!
I've been noticing this more and more with microphones, once you notice what's wrong with one, you notice it in all of them (at least the ones available to you) - which is great from an engineer's perspective but absolutely horrible from a budget & enjoyment perspective. Having to stop myself looking up DSD recording because I'm not ready to hate all recorded sound just yet! 😄
Oh damn.
Yes, it is a curse. And it has led me to a lifetime trying to remove all the irritants in the recording process.
@@DWFearnHazelriggIndustries Thanks for the video, was a really informative talk & the performance was great!
Sounds amazing on CZcams. Is there a way to stream the audio for playback in a higher resolution? Seems like the players, the mics and the preamps are doing most of the heavy lifting. Thank you for making this happen, producing a video, and sharing!
I believe the recording in DSD128 has been preserved. I will see if we can make it available.
Where would I be able to find the direct DSD files to test on my own system, Absolutely brilliant lecture!
very interesting! i recently bought an otari mtr 90 mk3 and while i´m still waiting for the technician to properly align it etc i couldnt resist and tried some recording with it. i was working on a 80s soul/boogie track which was playing from my computer through an orion 32 into my ADT console (german SSL style 64 ch), listening through ATC SCM 45. i really love to experiment and do shootouts - i´m past the time when i trusted other people to make decisions. so i compared the digital version to the (handsynchronized) tape version and of course it sounded quite different i found it sooo much nicer to listen to. i couldn´t really come up with an exact word which describes it - it just felt much more right and real. i´ve never heard of the DSD thing which sounds very interesting, maybe it would be a great option for recording the master out of the console digitally. anyway, i really enjoyed this video a lot! thanks and keep up the great work ... waiting for new input)
You might like a series of three episodes on recording to tape that I did for my podcast, "My Take On Music Recording." They are, "Introduction to Tape," "Tape Alignment and Maintenance," and "Using Magnetic Tape in the Studio." You can access those and all the other episodes at dougfearn.com
DSD is a very interesting medium, even with its many drawbacks. The audio quality is much closer to analog tape than other digital formats. It has serious limitations, however, as I described in the talk.
@@DWFearnHazelriggIndustries thanks doug - have checked that out too now)
💯💯💯🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥💚💚🙏🙏Thanks 4 sharin
I really like this video. I'm not making a criticism at all, but I believe DSD was earlier than the SACD. Check out the dbx-700. I think it was the first Direct Stream recorder. 1 bit @ 644 KHz. It's just a processor that uses BetaMax VCRs to store the data as black/white video dots. I've got one, and it sounds amazing (I think). Certainly better than anything else I know of from 1986. I've been recording for 25 years, and yet I learned quite a lot from just this video. I love history! Wish I could afford those mic pres!
Bruce -- I have not researched DSD in detail, but I a pretty sure that Bell Labs defined the concept in the 1930s. And I think there was some commercial use of DSD as far back as the 1950s - but not for music recording. I am sure you are correct about DSD pre-dating the SACD. It was necessary to capture in DSD before the SACD could be manufactured.
I agree with you about your love of the history of our profession. It is fascinating to learn how much of the technology was invented in the 1930s, even though there was no practical way to implement it at the time.
I'm glad you found the video useful.
What a surprise to hear Van Halen's Drop Dead Legs as one of the musical examples. I enjoyed the discussion as well.
Hello and thank you. I'm not sure if you've met Doug, George or Geoff at a previous AES or NAMM show, but we're always happy to hop on Zoom for introductions and a chat if you're ever inclined. Hope you're doing well.
@@DWFearnHazelriggIndustries yes, let's connect sometime soon.
Hello and good afternoon. If you are able to drop us a quick email at support@hazelriggindustries.com, we can easily find a great time to chat. Looking forward to speaking with you.
Thank you so much for doing this super interesting!! ... interesting on how to bring in the DSD recordings into modern pop and contemporary music production In an efficient and easy way so that young people can acces this quality of music and start appreciating it.
would love to experiment with this!
Thanks for the comments, Frank. I think we are seeing a shift in interest in DSD recording. DSD still has the mixing problem, but even if you have to convert to PCM to mix, or mix in analog, the advantage of DSD capture seems to provide a worthwhile benefit.
D.W. Fearn Thank you for your answer! yes I really agree, to bring it in to the digital domain for processing would def be the way to go, since investing and building up a full analog set up is both expensive and takes up a lot of space.
would love to get a deeper understanding on how to capture dsd and the convertion to pcm works, and what this would look like for someone like me who mostly work with programming and samples. This would apply mostly and majorly on vocal recordings and occasional guitar/piano recordings when needed.
have you done any videos like this, if so please let me know where to find this! many thanks 🙏
I love this presentation! Thanks! I do have a couple of questions though:
- you used the AEA R88 mic, which version did you use the R88 or the R88A (with transformer and active electronics)?
- Since the R88 passive requires a "Preamp gain should be at least +60dB or higher and the preamp should have a very high impedance" how come that the VT-24 was used? Is this still suitable or should one buy the VT-12?
- is there any specific reason the R88 is put all the way long across the piano and not on the right side facing the piano? will there be a different stereo picture lower tones being more from the left this time and higher tones in the right channel?
Many thanks again. Great video.
Thanks for the kind comments!
- Both mics are the passive R88s. One is an original version and the second is the MkII version, which differs mainly in the mounting hardware. I prefer the sound of passive ribbon mics.
- With the relatively close mic'ing used in this session (and most of my sessions), the R88 output level is plenty high enough to use our normal gain mic preamps (in this case, a VT-24). A distant mic'ing technique like you might use for an orchestra or choir might require more gain, but I have done plenty of sessions with the R88 at least 20 feet from the performers and the VT-1/VT-2/VT-24 has always had enough gain. However, there are times when I use a ribbon mic for dialog recording for a video and the mic is out of the shot. In those instances, the higher gain of the VT-12 is useful.
- We placed the boom mic stand on the left of the piano in this concert to keep good sightlines for the audience and video. Normally we would have the boom coming from the right side of the piano.
Functionally, the mic is in the same position either way. We can reverse the channels as needed to obtain the desired left-right stereo image.
Glad that you found this video useful.
@@DWFearnHazelriggIndustries Many thanks for the reply, now I understand the setup. Thank you.
Maybe one more question, the R88 is looking for high impedance input stage (in the range of 10kOhms would be ideal I think that is what I read, is the 1.5kOhm suitable?) Many thanks.
@@sandormaracsko Most ribbon mic manufacturers recommend a 10K or higher load impedance on their mics. Our VT-12 is 10k input Z. Our other mic preamps are all 1500-ohm input Z. I use both the 1500 and 10k input preamps depending on how much gain I need. I actually do not hear a lot of difference in the sound. This recording is with a VT-24, which has a 1500-ohm input Z. Your experience may be different.
Randomly stumbled upon this video while I was doing research on Blumlein technique. Any interesting development as regards to DSD? Also do you know any recordings of pipe organ music that has been done in DSD (I'm an organist turned beginner AE)?
There hasn't been much new with DSD since this video was made. We now use Merging Technologies converters, which will do DSD256 (11.2MHz sample rate). The same mixing problems continue to limit the acceptance of DSD, but it is an excellent format when you can use it. I would think an organ recording would be perfect for DSD. I am not sure of any organ DSD recordings, but I bet they exist.
Those are nice quiet sucked in pre-amps, partly because of the ribbon mics. Is that pencil on the drums even on? Fearn makes great stuff.
The only mics in use were the two AEA R88 stereo mics.
With a setup like this (dual R88s covering all the ground), any tips on panning in the mix? Are both R88s just wide L-R, or is there an attempt to keep the bass/drums more centered and the piano wider?
Good questions. We leave the R88s panned hard left and right for the bass and drums, which gives a natural stereo spread, not too wide. Same for the piano, most of the time, except when the stereo spread is excessive for the piece, then we might pan them in a bit from full left and right. In this recording, both R88s are panned hard L&R.
@@DWFearnHazelriggIndustries Thank you sir - great video and much appreciated by the community!
Very interesting. Can't find anywhere any tests with one mic split signal into dsd and pcm. Any insight on where to find such test?
I am not aware of any tests done that way. There is a video on this YT channel that compares the same session in DSD (1 stereo mic), with a PCM multi-mic version. Two variables changed, so not a valid comparison. Some day I may make a recording as you suggest.
@@DWFearnHazelriggIndustries thank you for your reply. Subscribed not to miss your uploads and potentially this test.
Do you guys have comparative samples of PCM to DSD?
Yes, please do post, even though this is two years old. We are still starved for content.
I hope Doug Fearn is reading along here... I own a matched pair of AKG C414 XLS mics and I record mainly large church organs. I'd like to try the Blumlein technique but as he speaks of ribbon mics being used in his masterclass, I am wondering whether or not I will achieve the same (good) results with the use of my condenser mics set to a figure of 8 pattern. Does anyone have any experience with condenser mics in a Blumlein set-up?
The 414 is one of my favorite condenser mics, and I have used them as a Blumlein pair in the past. The mics are small and that makes them easy to configure as a stereo pair. I think they work very well in that application.
@@DWFearnHazelriggIndustries Wow, that's a quick reply to my question. Thank you very much for taking the time to answer. I feel honoured. So far, I have always recorded large church organs (in large cathedrals) with the C414 mics in cardioid pattern (NOS 90 degrees facing out) and two Oktava MK-519 cardioids facing to rear for ambient sound pickup. I've always been quite satisfied with the results, however, with the Blumlein technique I would only need the two C414 mics so thereby eliminating any possible phase problems that could occur with the second pair that are facing to the rear for picking up ambient church sound. The only thing I am worried about is picking up too much ambient sound, as some cathedrals have a natural reverb time of between 4 and 7 seconds. I guess the only way to find out is by experimenting and actually trying it. Maybe I'll do a simultaneous recording using the Oktava MK-519 in NOS setup and AKG C414 in Blumlein setup. In that case I'll use two Oktava MK-319 mics (facing rear) for ambient room sound to mix in with the MK-519's. Then compare the two recordings and see which is nicer. In any case, thanks again for your quick response to my question and your kind advise.
@@John_van_Kleef Have you tried using omni directional microphones, DPA 4006 Schoep MK2 or similiar? I like to use omni's since they usually have a very wide frequency response. The AKG 414 cannot go as low as most omni microphones. I record very large pipe organs and using omni's to record them I feel the low frequencies when the 32 foot woods are used while listening on large loudspeakers.
@@MikeOsborne1962 Thanks for your thoughts Michael. The C414 XLS can be set to OMNI mode, and I have used them that way for my most recent CD recording of one of The Netherlands largest church organs. The church has a natural reverberation time of around 8 seconds. The organ is very high up in the church (about 36 ft) . After some experimenting with the setup (changing distance from the organ façade) I got to a very pleasing result. It turned out to be one of my best recordings to date.
@@John_van_Kleef Sorry, it makes no difference what pattern you use, they are limited to 30hz as EVERY pressure gradient receiver. What you need are pressure microphones, "real" omnis that go one octave lower - like KM183 or MKH20/8020.
BTW C414 are no good choice for Blumlein or MS, since the capsules are to large to come close enough. You chould use "real" figure of eights like the MKH30 or KM120 for that task. Of course you can use what you want if you like the sound, but these are the fundamentals.
Maybe I am a bit dump, I m Dutch. Merging pyramix is recording in DSD 384 multitrack for a..... more than 20 years, or so. Why not use this? Or am I missing something?
Paul -- Since this session, we have changed over to Merging Technologies converters and software. The DA3000 was a good way for us to learn about DSD, but we have moved on.
Where is the evidence that DSD is more "High Resolution" than PCM?
How can a recording done with noisy tube / ribbon equipment that hardly comes close to 16Bit/44,1khz (CD)-Specs be "High Resolution"?
What is "High Resolution" anyway?
The Video sounds fine, what we hear is highly compressed audio. It would sound even better with proper miking / mixing.
On a sidenote: Van Halens "Drop Dead Legs" for Piano-Trio is genius - no matter how it is recorded! That's the crux of the matter.
Hello. There is surely much more to discuss about DSD and PCM than I can type here, but perhaps we'll go in depth on this subject in a future podcast. And while we don't agree with your assertion that all tube based equipment is inherently noisy, we are always open to learning more about improved microphone techniques. If you can point us to any information on the subject that you've published, we'd surely be eager to check it out. Lastly, thank you for your kind words on the arrangement and performance of Drop Dead Legs. It's a great song and we were happy to share our take on it.
@@DWFearnHazelriggIndustries Thank you D.W. for your answer.
Just two things: I'm not saying tube-equipment is inherently noisy. But it's maybe not the most efficient technology for "high resolution" recording.
Of course, state of the art-preamps like the neumann v-Series back in the days where designed to have to lowest noise possible - and for lowest possibly colouring.
Second, for archieving the best dynamics you clearly need microphones with very low self-noise / signal to noise ratio. You get this with a high sensitivity transducer. And this is the reason almost everybody uses Condensers as Main or Room-Microphones.
For spot / close micing, every dynamic microphones (a ribbon of course is dynamic) is perfect if you like its mellow character.
If you like mellow AND& high sensitive, the Sennheiser MKHs or Schoeps is a perfect choice, you could also try the TLM170 or the classic U89 with the smooth K89 dual diaphragm capsule.
Hi,
Thank you for a great lecture!!
Would love your help in this :)
I'm trying to understand the difference between "good" phase cancellation and "bad" one.
Unrelated to recording, there is inter-aural time difference (ITD) and inter-aural phase difference (IPD)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaural_time_difference
This is actually relevant to creating a realistic Binaural recording.
But also there might be phase problems resulting from the recording process, which if we desire Realistic sound would be considered unwanted.
I wonder how to differentiate between desired realistic phasing and time difference, and unwanted which come from the recording.
Thank you very much!
Tom -- There are many approaches to stereo recording and each has its advantages and disadvantages.
Our hearing is sensitive to differences in time arrival of a sound, which gives us a large part of sense of direction of the sound. Time difference and phase difference are the same phenomenon, and there is a somewhat arbitrary dividing line in the use of the terminology.
As recordists, we must make compromises to ensure the greatest compatibility for listeners who may hear the recording under many different circumstances. Examples are headphones vs speakers, or stereo vs mono. (This also applies to formats with more than two channels.) Spaced omni microphones give the recording an amazing sense of space, but with a severe lack of compatibility with different listening situations.
To me, the best compromise is a co-incident pair of microphones, and of those techniques, the Blumlein configuration of crossed bi-directional mics is my favorite. But the pickup from the "sides" of the mic array is out-of-phase. That makes Blumlein challenging to set up in some circumstances. The side signal is always "out of phase," or more accurately, out of polarity. This adds a lot of spaciousness to the room reverberation at the cost of mono compatibility for that portion of the sound.
It's always a compromise to be managed.
@@DWFearnHazelriggIndustries Thank you for answering! I learned a lot!
As a CZcams viewer, were we hearing the DSD recording?
CZcams has their own audio date compression scheme, so what you hear is roughly equivalent to a MP3. A WAV file version may be available. I'll have to check. It will be a huge file.
32:18 "[...] it;s only defined by two points. if it's a sine wave, it's no longer a sine wave, it's some bizarre form of wave form, not a sine. [...] there's still lots of important data between 10 and 20KHz, you don't have a reproduction of that, you just have a rough facsimile of those wave forms above that"
Gentlemen, it's not how it works, it's not how any of it works. :))
this is you right now: czcams.com/video/Aq_1l316ow8/video.html
Oh dear oh dear - all this expensive state of the art technology and this studio can't be bothered to restore a poor old reed organ with a dropped pedal. What wonderful sounds they might have discovered if only they had done so!
Unfortunately this is not entirely accurate. 44.1 reproduces 20khz perfectly (perfect null). Its a complex topic but this is misleading.
"Digital artifacts and what they might do to you" ... thats what I'm often thinking when listening to shitty CZcams Audio that this might be harmful on a deeper level we do tolerate to much.
I agree!