• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Which speakers are the Classical Music Pros using?

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,454
Likes
4,216
…I will look up Dr Mark Waldrep, but if you can point me to good literature that would help. All I find in a couple of minutes is a book for audiophiles, something I would never write myself. Maybe one day a good book on purist recoding and production techniques, or recording psychology.
Here are a few short blog notes by Dr Waldrep where he touches to various degrees on the single mic vs close mic techniques, plus his academic cv and the audio eng course overview where he heads (or may be now retired) the audio recording program:-

https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=1198

https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=1939

Piano https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=445

https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=835

Presence https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=1957

Academic at CSU: Mark Davis Waldrep (1995)
Professor of Music
B.M., 1978, California State University, Northridge;
M.A., 1979, California State University, Northridge;
B.A., 1982, California State University, Northridge;
M.F.A., 1984, California Institute of Arts;
Ph.D., 1986, University of California, Los Angeles;
M.S., 1992, California State University, Northridge

Head of the Recording Program within the Audio Engineering curriculum at CSUDH: https://catalog.csudh.edu/academics/audio-engineering/audio-engineering.pdf

Of course your best bet is to approach him directly if interested in expanding your skill set, rather than haggling on audio science forums with a mere messenger such as I. Provided he continues to survive his cancer in recent years.

cheers
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2022
Messages
50
Likes
98
An except from this paper by Dr. David Griesinger. (Note: The paper is focused on producing recordings intended to be listened to by more than 1 listeners.)

Main microphones and the Hall Radius
The problems of typical main microphones are even more profound. We are taught - correctly - that we cannot pick up the direct sound from an instrument with a microphone that is at a distance greater than the hall radius (critical distance). (The hall radius is the distance at which the direct sound and the reverberant sound are equal in power.) Yet we are also taught to use main microphones. These two teachings cannot be true at the same time!
Many halls have a hall radius of less than five meters, and a stage house typically has a hall radius of less than three meters. Most instruments in an orchestra are more than five meters from any main microphone position. If we made a recording with the main microphone alone, the result would be unusable. Nearly all the instruments will sound too far away. Every practicing engineer knows this fact.
So we add "support microphones" to pick up the missing direct sound and add it to the recording. These microphones are close enough to the instruments to pick up the direct sound without too much reflected energy. But if the support microphones are supplying the direct sound – why are they called “support”? They are really the main microphones!
We can easily prove the importance of the “support” microphones. When the main microphone is separated from a particular instrument by several hall radii, The direct sound is almost inaudible. The total loudness for a particular instrument comes from the sum of the reflected energy. In practice we are told to bring up the level of the “support” microphone until we easily hear it. In this case the direct sound from the “support” will be stronger than the direct sound in the “main” by many decibels. If fact, if the recording is to have the clarity and separation most conductors demand in a commercial recording, the energy from the “support” microphone from any ONE particular instrument will be greater than the total energy in the “main” microphone for this instrument.
In fact, in nearly any successful commercial recording the front image is supplied entirely by the “support” microphones, and the main microphone merely supplies some of the reflected energy and reverberation. The main microphone increases the apparent distance and blend of some of the instruments – but it does not work well for all of them. There is a better way to achieve the same result.
So… we will talk about how to make a terrific recording without assuming the listener is centered between the speakers. That means finding solutions which work within the constraints listed above. Perhaps, when we are through, our recording will be even better when the listener is centered. But this is not our goal.
I read this paper partly already, and it seems to support largely what I do in general when recording and what I am saying here.
I am confused as to why you posted this quote ?

(as a side note, this quote contains a wrong argument and a mistake. The wrong argument is the hall radius. Clearly the author prefers coincident stereo, as in this study level based panning works better - so no decca trees here. Using coincident stereo you have to multiply the hall radius by 1.4 up to 1.8, to take the directivity into account. This means you arrive at 8-9m easily ! The mistake is mixing in spot mics. To get a spot mic sounding as if the source were recorded INSIDE the hall radius, one typically needs to add -6dB to -12 (only !) of spot mic relative to the main pickup. This effectively adds between 1 dB and less than 0.5 dB respectively. No way the energy from the spot mic will be higher than the main mic. The ONE exception of this is placing a soloist in the wrong place, ie. much too far from the main mic, so you HAVE to add lots of solo mic. This is a great solution, as you do not get the comb filter when - typically - the solo mic is as loud as the main mic)

The paper largely seems to favour level based stereo (eg. Blumlein stereo or MS stereo) or really spaced arrays. This indeed has the advantage the listening sweet spot becomes much wider than spaced techniques. The paper also favours recording on the dry side and then adding artificial reverb. This has the advantage that you can make every sound source sit just within the edge of the hall radius, giving clear sound but wet. You then have the artistic source to "overdo it" on some sources, like a harp or horn part that typically sounds further away.

I will read it fully, but I have not found the part yet where it says the recording should be very dry and close mic'd sounding.
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2022
Messages
50
Likes
98
Here are a few short blog notes by Dr Waldrep where he touches to various degrees on the single mic vs close mic techniques, plus his academic cv and the audio eng course overview where he heads (or may be now retired) the audio recording program:-

https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=1198

https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=1939

Piano https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=445

https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=835

Presence https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=1957

Academic at CSU: Mark Davis Waldrep (1995)
Professor of Music
B.M., 1978, California State University, Northridge;
M.A., 1979, California State University, Northridge;
B.A., 1982, California State University, Northridge;
M.F.A., 1984, California Institute of Arts;
Ph.D., 1986, University of California, Los Angeles;
M.S., 1992, California State University, Northridge

Head of the Recording Program within the Audio Engineering curriculum at CSUDH: https://catalog.csudh.edu/academics/audio-engineering/audio-engineering.pdf

Of course your best bet is to approach him directly if interested in expanding your skill set, rather than haggling on audio science forums with a mere messenger such as I. Provided he continues to survive his cancer in recent years.

cheers
With all respect, the blog posts you reference are about the level of the articles I read the first 6 months when I started doing mobile recording in 1993. I am new to this forum because I am looking for a decent headphone, which seemingly does not exist ... I am not new to recording classical cds, I must be at 750+ productions by now.

While I respect this recording aesthetic, I largely disagree - for most types of classical music that are being typically played live in reverberant venues.

I can support the idea of recording a piano really close, and I agree you need multiple mics. A close mic will never capture a big enough part of the sound field of a big instrument (or even a violin - try recording a Strad from within 3m ...). Or even some string quartets that really dry, and thus sitting in your room.
But in general, classical music should be in a hall or large hall - excluding the "they are here" option. All you can end up with is the "you are there"approach - of which I know it is not very popular in the U.S. (if that is your location).

I am talking not only as a pro mobile recording engineer, but also as a classical trained pianist. Here (Belgium) we are taught not to play for ourselves, but make sound for the entire audience. Half of the time my piano teacher was shouting one should listen to his/her sound - at the end of the hall !

As mentioned in the paper - I reject the notion that you cannot record a piano with a single stereo mic. When using a close and distant pair, you always end up with 2 (or 4 when spaced stereo techniques are used) piano's ! As a pianist, I know what the attack sounds like, so I cannot bear listening to 4 attacks for each note.
 

Frgirard

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Messages
1,737
Likes
1,040
Public Doxxing is absolutely not permitted here. Respect everyone’s privacy rights.
Post content removed by Moderation. Doxxing someone will result in severe account privileges if not an outright permanent ban.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Oct 13, 2022
Messages
50
Likes
98
95 records for those who don't know you.

Wtf ?

if this is the level of this forum, my account will be shortlived.


most of my productions are on my business name, but allmusic only works for personal names …
197 is just a fraction of what I did

At least I do not use a stupid alias online, in any forum.
 

Doodski

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
20,753
Likes
20,771
Location
Canada
At least I do not use a stupid alias online, in any forum.
I think you have pride and feel a need to identify yourself with directly traceable names and information although in today's world it is somewhat risky/dangerous to identify oneself online so I don't think your comment about a, "Stupid alias" is reasonable or fair to all the members of ASR and other websites. Otherwise I don't doubt your recording career achievements and quantity of productions. It was jumping to conclusions that made that comment of, "95 records for those who don't know you." and that was unfair. Most days we have a modicum of respect here for our fellow peeps and this situation is a outlier.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
Wtf ?

if this is the level of this forum, my account will be shortlived.


most of my productions are on my business name, but allmusic only works for personal names …
197 is just a fraction of what I did

At least I do not use a stupid alias online, in any forum.
I don't think any of us could know how many recordings you've worked upon. Someone posted one link showing you are involved in 95 recordings. Enough to let people know you are a real professional in the business with lots of real experience. I'd already looked that up as your name seemed familiar, but I could not quite remember from where.

So I didn't know about it being 197 and it really doesn't matter in terms of just letting people know you might be someone worth listening to as having real world experience and knowledge. 95 is enough, 50 is enough, so why the blowback at the guy who posted that link? Is there some special place every forum user is supposed to know this stuff from or you discount the forum? That does not make much sense. Allmusic does appear more comprehensive for this one purpose. More people use Discogs so a natural place to look.

Oh, and if I told you my real name, you'd find around 50 credits. Only problem is that isn't me. It is someone else.
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2022
Messages
50
Likes
98
You are not reading correctly and minimalising. I said 750+. You make the difference between 95 and 197 seem insignificant. My rebuttal was, the numbers you find on the internet are meaningless. The content of what is written is not.

Suddenly it is about this number. No response to what i actually posted before. The commet 95 was only a quick google search and a direct implication of a lie, what else ? Why should anyone believe anything what any person writes ?

On topic. B&w are used very often. Classical recording, mastering. They are not neutral enough, and problematic. Hence problematic recordings.

About aliases, some pro websites have zero tolerance for them. I am used to that culture. You should not seek for a motive beyond basic politeness. I use my name, period.
 

Doodski

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
20,753
Likes
20,771
Location
Canada
About aliases, some pro websites have zero tolerance for them. I am used to that culture. You should not seek for a motive beyond basic politeness. I use my name, period.
I am not familiar with web forums that use formal surnames and given names. :D If you want to use your proper name that's your choice. :D
 
OP
tuga

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
read this paper partly already, and it seems to support largely what I do in general when recording and what I am saying here.
I am confused as to why you posted this quote ?

I wouldn’t waste my time with that person.
 

NTK

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Messages
2,660
Likes
5,820
Location
US East
I am confused as to why you posted this quote ?
Pointing out what are not the right conditions.
A purist approach can and will work brilliantly in the right conditions.
More from Griesinger's paper:

If the listener is in the sweet spot most “main microphone” techniques reproduce horizontal localization well. In fact, they often can give a more evenly spaced image than a spaced technique as in figure 7.
But the major advantage for most users is the idea that these techniques produce a more natural sense the depth of the image. Sound sources appear to be behind the loudspeaker basis, and not in the loudspeakers themselves.
But the impression of distance or depth is not uniform across the image. Careful listeners will notice that instruments to the far left or far right of the microphone array often seem closer to the listener than instruments in the center, even though the instruments in the center are closer to the microphone.
The perception of the depth of a sound image is not a mystery. The perceived distance of a sound source depends on early lateral reflections, which means reflections that arrive at a listener from other directions than the direction of the source. A main microphone array can provide these reflections – but it only does it for some of the sources, particularly those near the center.
The major point of this paper is that you can achieve the same or better results through careful addition of early reflections generated electronically, and thus achieve both a natural sense of depth, and good horizontal localization over a wide listening area.
....

If we want good localization off axis we must use amplitude panning and not time delay panning for all sources in the front. The panning should be from center to left and from center to right - not from left to right. We want to use the center speaker – which means that a sound image that comes from the center should be at least 6dB louder in the center speaker than it is in the left and the right. These two requirements eliminate most single point microphone arrays. Even for the front channels only it is difficult to meet these criteria with pressure-gradient microphones located on a single stand, and it is impossible with omnis.
There is a further requirement on the microphone technique used for the two front channels and the two rear channels. The reverberation they pick up should be decorrelated. This means the left and right main microphones must use one of the combinations of patterns and angles given in Figure 20, or that they should be separated by at least the reverberation radius of the room.
The reverberation picked up by the rear microphones should also be decorrelated – and should be decorrelated with the front channels. In practice this means that the rear microphones must be separated from the front microphones by a distance of at least the reverberation radius.
If we eliminate all stereo main microphone techniques, and all closely spaced arrays, what is left? The situation is not a bleak as it looks. Most practicing engineers already space their rear microphones away from each other and from the front microphones. They also are already expert in the careful use of multi microphone technique. They use this technique for a simple reason – it works well in practice. I am only suggesting that it also works well in theory. Very few of the major recording engineers try to record surround (or stereo) from a single stand. This method seems to be reserved for schools and broadcast stations. They will simply have to catch up with the rest of us.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,454
Likes
4,216
... in general, classical music should be in a hall or large hall - excluding the "they are here" option.
Not true. A vast catalogue of classical music was written to be performed in small spaces (compared to a large concert hall).
...as a classical trained pianist. Here (Belgium) we are taught not to play for ourselves, but make sound for the entire audience. Half of the time my piano teacher was shouting one should listen to his/her sound - at the end of the hall!
I have come across a fair bit of writing about the tonal changes in classical instruments by the (relatively) modern need to play them at such high levels so that they can be heard at the back of large halls. The tone of many classical instruments has become harder, more steely, more strident, striving for 'attack' value over tonal value. Playing styles have to accomodate this too, and compromises are inevitable when playing harder and louder and with distantly-audible 'attack'.

So, let's allow a broader lexicon of classical recording techniques (not to mention venue type and size and instrumental qualities and playing styles) than your stated approaches.

cheers
 
  • Like
Reactions: TSB

Duke

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
1,523
Likes
3,745
Location
Princeton, Texas
But in general, classical music should be in a hall or large hall - excluding the "they are here" option. All you can end up with is the "you are there"approach - of which I know it is not very popular in the U.S. (if that is your location).

Pardon my ignorance of the recording side of the chain - what would be the difference between a "they are here" approach and a "you are there" approach? I would guess that the latter includes more hall ambience information, but don't want to jump to an uneducated conclusion.
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2022
Messages
50
Likes
98
Pardon my ignorance of the recording side of the chain - what would be the difference between a "they are here" approach and a "you are there" approach? I would guess that the latter includes more hall ambience information, but don't want to jump to an uneducated conclusion.
Ah, I thought it was mainly a "audiophile" thing, but you are right, it is the main divider in the 2 big recording ethos.

You are there infers recording the performance in the hall/church/whatever, and playing that back in the listening room to give the listener a sense of leaving his room, and being transported to the recording venue. This does not need to be a distant (minimalist as it seems to be called wrongly and negatively here ?) rendering, it can be quite close as well. One mic. 27 mics. A constant will be the main mic array will do the heavy lifting in the final mix.

They are here is quite the opposite. The recording is close & intimate and does not have much information about the venue, or the venue was dry (and big) to begin with. You can play this back in your listening room, and on a good system it will sound as if they are playing in your room.

The problem with the latter is, psychologically and physically it is quite impossible to fit 20-80 musicians in my living room. So you can conclude I belong to the "you are there" recordists. Exceptions exist of course.

A good example of why the divide is never 100% are maybe all of the classical guitar solo recordings. I know none that belong to the second camp, which is a pity. IMO there is a great deal of guitar literature which does not belong in a church, and can be recorded and played back in a they are here fashion. Interestingly this is not done !
Bach cello suites is another example.
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2022
Messages
50
Likes
98
Not true. A vast catalogue of classical music was written to be performed in small spaces (compared to a large concert hall).

I have come across a fair bit of writing about the tonal changes in classical instruments by the (relatively) modern need to play them at such high levels so that they can be heard at the back of large halls. The tone of many classical instruments has become harder, more steely, more strident, striving for 'attack' value over tonal value. Playing styles have to accomodate this too, and compromises are inevitable when playing harder and louder and with distantly-audible 'attack'.

So, let's allow a broader lexicon of classical recording techniques (not to mention venue type and size and instrumental qualities and playing styles) than your stated approaches.

cheers
You are right. Quite a lot of classical music was originally performed in rather small dry spaces. Like I wrote in my post above. Why is it then that most of the guitar cds are really wet, and most Bach cello suites are recorded in churches ? Indeed, choice is being dictated by either recording tradition, or personal choice of the musician. It goes against the discussion we are having.

One of course will be constrained by practical considerations, or ideally the choice of venue will really suit the music. In my experience this is mostly a larger acoustic space, with a clear signature.
As I wrote, there are cultural differences.

Don't open the box of Pandora by starting to talk about modern piano's ;-) Some years half of what I record is piano solo, half of which are period instruments, the other half new. It is so hard to find a decent modern piano. Although the last decade the situation is improving again. A textbook case about evolution taken too far in the wrong direction. In a good hall one can play extremely soft and be heard. Only this is near impossible on many contemporary pianos. It was one of Richter's big complaints.

I know several really good piano technicians. They invariably complain about the apalling quality of parts when doing a renovation, or about the condition a new concert grand is delivered in. It is like a 100K Mercedes that cannot drive away from the dealership without 3 days work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TSB
Joined
Oct 13, 2022
Messages
50
Likes
98
Pointing out what are not the right conditions.

More from Griesinger's paper:

If the listener is in the sweet spot most “main microphone” techniques reproduce horizontal localization well. In fact, they often can give a more evenly spaced image than a spaced technique as in figure 7.
But the major advantage for most users is the idea that these techniques produce a more natural sense the depth of the image. Sound sources appear to be behind the loudspeaker basis, and not in the loudspeakers themselves.
But the impression of distance or depth is not uniform across the image. Careful listeners will notice that instruments to the far left or far right of the microphone array often seem closer to the listener than instruments in the center, even though the instruments in the center are closer to the microphone.
The perception of the depth of a sound image is not a mystery. The perceived distance of a sound source depends on early lateral reflections, which means reflections that arrive at a listener from other directions than the direction of the source. A main microphone array can provide these reflections – but it only does it for some of the sources, particularly those near the center.
The major point of this paper is that you can achieve the same or better results through careful addition of early reflections generated electronically, and thus achieve both a natural sense of depth, and good horizontal localization over a wide listening area.
....

If we want good localization off axis we must use amplitude panning and not time delay panning for all sources in the front. The panning should be from center to left and from center to right - not from left to right. We want to use the center speaker – which means that a sound image that comes from the center should be at least 6dB louder in the center speaker than it is in the left and the right. These two requirements eliminate most single point microphone arrays. Even for the front channels only it is difficult to meet these criteria with pressure-gradient microphones located on a single stand, and it is impossible with omnis.
There is a further requirement on the microphone technique used for the two front channels and the two rear channels. The reverberation they pick up should be decorrelated. This means the left and right main microphones must use one of the combinations of patterns and angles given in Figure 20, or that they should be separated by at least the reverberation radius of the room.
The reverberation picked up by the rear microphones should also be decorrelated – and should be decorrelated with the front channels. In practice this means that the rear microphones must be separated from the front microphones by a distance of at least the reverberation radius.
If we eliminate all stereo main microphone techniques, and all closely spaced arrays, what is left? The situation is not a bleak as it looks. Most practicing engineers already space their rear microphones away from each other and from the front microphones. They also are already expert in the careful use of multi microphone technique. They use this technique for a simple reason – it works well in practice. I am only suggesting that it also works well in theory. Very few of the major recording engineers try to record surround (or stereo) from a single stand. This method seems to be reserved for schools and broadcast stations. They will simply have to catch up with the rest of us.
You respond with another quote, without responding to my two main remarks about the first quote. Interesting discussion !

The new quote with the bolded parts is clearly about non-stereo playback in big theatres. It starts from the assumption there is a centre speaker. While I am not convinced there is a problem in a typical home environment, using single point main techniques, I agree it is problematic in large auditoria.

I assume that is not what we are discussing in this thread ? Surely the above quote is irrelevant to the discussion.
Griesinger writes in this paper that coincident techniques actually work well outside of the ideal listening position. Here he is clearly talking about living room or control room situations.

The problem with the above paper is that it seems full of inconsitencies and small paradoxes. His conclusion in paragraph 3&4 above is paradoxal. First he writes a clear preferences about coincident stereo techniques, which do not suffer from this when done correctly. In these paragraphs he uses the shortcomings of spaced techniques in stereo playback. As I said, I will try to read the entire paper ...

But I am not going to persue a discussion between myself and quotes. One can always find quotes ...
 

amadeuswus

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
277
Likes
265
Location
Massachusetts
if this is the level of this forum, my account will be shortlived.
I hope you will stay, and if forum guidelines permit this, maybe start a separate thread with a short list of titles you've engineered that you think are especially successful. It would be great to sample your work. Thanks.
 

amadeuswus

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
277
Likes
265
Location
Massachusetts
I hope you will stay, and if forum guidelines permit this, maybe start a separate thread with a short list of titles you've engineered that you think are especially successful. It would be great to sample your work. Thanks.
To continue off-topic, I am streaming this beautiful chamber arrangement of Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde:


(Apparently it was recorded in 2005, so maybe your approach has evolved in the years since. The recording doesn't sound remote or distant, to me. It's vivid and present. Wish the arrangement were available on imslp.org!)
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2022
Messages
50
Likes
98
To continue off-topic, I am streaming this beautiful chamber arrangement of Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde:


(Apparently it was recorded in 2005, so maybe your approach has evolved in the years since. The recording doesn't sound remote or distant, to me. It's vivid and present. Wish the arrangement were available on imslp.org!)
For fun you can compare with the Das Lied von der erde version by Reinbert de Leeuw, with another ensemble. It was also the last cd recording Reinbert de Leeuw conducted. The arrangement to me sounds more interesting - at the very least it has a harp part.

Das lied, with the very hectic first movement, is problematic, even in the orchestral version. In these two chamber music versions even a really good hifi system gets tested.

As a note of interest, I just recently heard back this later version on a Mola Mola Makua with the dac option, into a Bruno Putzeys Purifi amp (by Bruno himself), into Link audio B800 speakers. It is just gobsmacking how a state of the art (digital) replay chain makes this "problematic" go away.

But the thread was not about Mola Mola I guess ...
 

DSJR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Messages
3,314
Likes
4,427
Location
Suffolk Coastal, UK
Got to ask although I can guess a little...

There were some lovely orchestral performances recorded by Decca and EMI in the 60's and 60's and I almost cringe (unfairly?) when I was told some of the monitors then used. Tannoys in Lockwood (Major?) cabinets, Altecs at Abbey Road but not sure about earlier...
 
Top Bottom