• 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!

Reality Is Overrated When It Comes to Recordings (Article from music Engineer/Producer)

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,208
Likes
7,587
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd

goat76

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
1,269
Likes
1,385
About this reality.

Does it exist, when recordings are made artificially by manipulating and adding sound effects like reverb, putting together near-mic recordings form single instruments. I say it does not matter how it was made, and it is not so important what the artist and the sound engineer intended. What matters is if there is a musical event, a sonic experience, that is exciting and emotional.

Realistic then becomes more how the sound is presented in a way that manages to render realistic images of the sound elements in the recording. Rendering of instruments, so they appear like solid instruments, not something that comes out of a small speaker. And room reverb that fills the room, like sound that envelopes.

To make this happen, there must be spatial contrast in the renderings. Some instruments and sounds are precise, fixed in position, defined in size. Other sounds can be enveloping and very large, filling the whole room.

How good this spatial contrast can be, depends on the speakers and the acoustic properties of the room. Some systems can be enveloping and room-filling, but lack any precision in the rendering of objects. Other systems can be very precise, but lack this sense of room-filling sound. It is possible to achieve both. That is realism.
The main problem with recordings is that the microphones don't work the way we hear things.

If we want the stereo illusion of the recording to sound more real as we hear it, we can't use several close-up microphones and mix them together, we need to make the complete recording from a single point (two microphones in an XY setup) to mimic one listener's position as if the person was there. Every single point in the recorded performing room is unique in the way that it's only in this single spot both the direct sounds and the reflective sounds meet in a natural way that can create a correct illusion of the real event, everything else can only be a mockup, a fake puzzle of different pieces in space and time (and directions). BUT the big problem with this type of minimalistic recording is that if you want to catch an ensemble of more than say two performers at a time, the recording will in most cases sound too distant, too thin in a way that will not represent the way we hear it (if we were there). Some directional microphones can in a fairly good way mimic the way we hear things when it comes to the higher frequencies, but the same pickup pattern will not mimic the way our ears hear the lower frequencies. There are probably more things that are missing than the pickup pattern which makes the recording from the listening spot sound too distant, probably something our brains do in the "summing" of the incoming sounds and the small different arrival times to our (two) ears.

Another thing why we need to exaggerate the sounds in a recording with closer placed microphones is the somewhat unnatural way of listening to music without seeing the musicians, the isolation of just hearing the instruments takes away the "cocktail effect", which otherwise can make us focus our hearing on a single performer and almost just hear his single instrument, even though the sounds of the other instruments are masking most of sound of that single instrument. BUT the big problem with this type of recordings (with multi-mono closeup microphones) is that the natural one-point position is lost, this single point in the performing room that can otherwise mimic a single listener's position in the room and how he/she hears the performers and their unique position in the room, the distance to the direct sounds of the instruments and the natural way the reflections reach this single point/listening position.



In the article in the original post of this thread, the author talked about a minimalist recording series called OneMic Series made by the recording engineer John Cuniberti. In his recordings, it's easy to hear the benefits of the single-point recordings as long as I can see the musicians, it sounds pretty natural in the way that the sounds from the different instruments are not masking each other when all "the pieces fall in place" distance-wise to each other. BUT if I shut my eyes and just listen to the sound the problems and what is missed are pretty clear to me, it sounds a little too washed out and distant. Well, it sounds pretty good anyway... :)

 

Ricardus

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 15, 2022
Messages
843
Likes
1,153
Location
Northern GA
The whole one-mic thing is getting popular with bluegrass I noticed. Lots of live festivals doing that.

I used to run sound in a room that just wanted to feedback all the time at multiple frequencies, and I tried this there (at the band's request) and it just wouldn't work.

In the studio I probably wouldn't consider a 1 mic thing, but minimalist miking is something I'm not opposed to. Like using the Glyn Johns drum miking technique.
 
OP
MattHooper

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,808
The main problem with recordings is that the microphones don't work the way we hear things.

If we want the stereo illusion of the recording to sound more real as we hear it, we can't use several close-up microphones and mix them together, we need to make the complete recording from a single point (two microphones in an XY setup) to mimic one listener's position as if the person was there. Every single point in the recorded performing room is unique in the way that it's only in this single spot both the direct sounds and the reflective sounds meet in a natural way that can create a correct illusion of the real event, everything else can only be a mockup, a fake puzzle of different pieces in space and time (and directions). BUT the big problem with this type of minimalistic recording is that if you want to catch an ensemble of more than say two performers at a time, the recording will in most cases sound too distant, too thin in a way that will not represent the way we hear it (if we were there). Some directional microphones can in a fairly good way mimic the way we hear things when it comes to the higher frequencies, but the same pickup pattern will not mimic the way our ears hear the lower frequencies. There are probably more things that are missing than the pickup pattern which makes the recording from the listening spot sound too distant, probably something our brains do in the "summing" of the incoming sounds and the small different arrival times to our (two) ears.

Another thing why we need to exaggerate the sounds in a recording with closer placed microphones is the somewhat unnatural way of listening to music without seeing the musicians, the isolation of just hearing the instruments takes away the "cocktail effect", which otherwise can make us focus our hearing on a single performer and almost just hear his single instrument, even though the sounds of the other instruments are masking most of sound of that single instrument. BUT the big problem with this type of recordings (with multi-mono closeup microphones) is that the natural one-point position is lost, this single point in the performing room that can otherwise mimic a single listener's position in the room and how he/she hears the performers and their unique position in the room, the distance to the direct sounds of the instruments and the natural way the reflections reach this single point/listening position.



In the article in the original post of this thread, the author talked about a minimalist recording series called OneMic Series made by the recording engineer John Cuniberti. In his recordings, it's easy to hear the benefits of the single-point recordings as long as I can see the musicians, it sounds pretty natural in the way that the sounds from the different instruments are not masking each other when all "the pieces fall in place" distance-wise to each other. BUT if I shut my eyes and just listen to the sound the problems and what is missed are pretty clear to me, it sounds a little too washed out and distant. Well, it sounds pretty good anyway... :)


Lots of good points. (Of course I agree, because I've made some of them too :) )

As someone who still makes field recordings I have to constantly be aware of how a microphone "hears" things vs how we hear things.
If I'm for instance trying to capture the sound of some neighborhood crickets at night, all it takes is for someone walking even fairly distant to have some rattling keys in their pocket, or foot scraping as they walk, or a dog chain rattling a bit, to screw things up. That's because while those may sound distant to me, and might not even register on my consciousness if I were just focused on the crickets, the microphones don't discriminate that way. The bright transient sound of keys rattling "leap forward" and sound in the recording like they may as well have been jingling beside the microphone.

Same way for how our brains are evolved to hear through ambience and acoustics to the thing we are interested in, e.g. someone talking. We aren't normally aware of the acoustics of the room because our perception is focused on understanding the voice and filtering them out. But a mic placed where we stand likely picks up all the room reverb and it becomes part of the sound, the voice is not "extracted" from it like our brain/ear processing does for us. (Hence for dialogue recording you are always trying to get as close as possible to the actor with a directional mic).

But as I said, some people point to microphone idiosyncrasies and the artifice of miking techniques to say "therefore all recordings sound artificial" when in fact savvy understanding and combinations of mic techniques are often used to make things sound LESS artificial - to produce a sound more like what we actually perceive. It's done all the time (e.g combining ambient and spot miking).
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
The whole one-mic thing is getting popular with bluegrass I noticed. Lots of live festivals doing that.

I used to run sound in a room that just wanted to feedback all the time at multiple frequencies, and I tried this there (at the band's request) and it just wouldn't work.

In the studio I probably wouldn't consider a 1 mic thing, but minimalist miking is something I'm not opposed to. Like using the Glyn Johns drum miking technique.
I've done these and it really isn't one mic it's a pair of ribbons for a Blumlein setup. In a lightly damped room works fine. Just have to mix with spacing and make sure people don't overlap each other as rear on one side is heard as other side in front when doing stereo.
 

Ricardus

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 15, 2022
Messages
843
Likes
1,153
Location
Northern GA
I've done these and it really isn't one mic it's a pair of ribbons for a Blumlein setup. In a lightly damped room works fine. Just have to mix with spacing and make sure people don't overlap each other as rear on one side is heard as other side in front when doing stereo.
There are definitely people doing this with an Omni mic.

But it's interesting that you should say that (and it's in your name). I can't wait to record a string quartet with a Blumlein. That will be fun to experiment with.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
There are definitely people doing this with an Omni mic.

But it's interesting that you should say that (and it's in your name). I can't wait to record a string quartet with a Blumlein. That will be fun to experiment with.
Yes and the old bluegrass way was a single omni or single cardioid. Cuniberti however is using a crossed pair of figure 8s in one housing. An AEA R88 ribbon stereo microphone.

 
Last edited:

goat76

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
1,269
Likes
1,385
But as I said, some people point to microphone idiosyncrasies and the artifice of miking techniques to say "therefore all recordings sound artificial" when in fact savvy understanding and combinations of mic techniques are often used to make things sound LESS artificial - to produce a sound more like what we actually perceive. It's done all the time (e.g combining ambient and spot miking).
Yes I know, I use 3 microphones in total just to be able to capture the "full" sound of a single guitar amp. Two of the microphones with different characteristics (dark/bright) are close to the amp to "blend in" the tone, and one is at a distance for the ambient sound, otherwise, it sounds too dry. That's something I have picked up from Steve Albini and how he does it and it works really well to get around some of the shortcomings of the microphones, but if a single microphone could be used instead, at the position where it just sounds good, we would also get all the benefits of the single-point recording technique which have the potential of even better recordings.
 

Kvalsvoll

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Audio Company
Joined
Apr 25, 2019
Messages
878
Likes
1,643
Location
Norway
The main problem with recordings is that the microphones don't work the way we hear things.

If we want the stereo illusion of the recording to sound more real as we hear it, we can't use several close-up microphones and mix them together, we need to make the complete recording from a single point (two microphones in an XY setup) to mimic one listener's position as if the person was there. Every single point in the recorded performing room is unique in the way that it's only in this single spot both the direct sounds and the reflective sounds meet in a natural way that can create a correct illusion of the real event, everything else can only be a mockup, a fake puzzle of different pieces in space and time (and directions). BUT the big problem with this type of minimalistic recording is that if you want to catch an ensemble of more than say two performers at a time, the recording will in most cases sound too distant, too thin in a way that will not represent the way we hear it (if we were there). Some directional microphones can in a fairly good way mimic the way we hear things when it comes to the higher frequencies, but the same pickup pattern will not mimic the way our ears hear the lower frequencies. There are probably more things that are missing than the pickup pattern which makes the recording from the listening spot sound too distant, probably something our brains do in the "summing" of the incoming sounds and the small different arrival times to our (two) ears.

Another thing why we need to exaggerate the sounds in a recording with closer placed microphones is the somewhat unnatural way of listening to music without seeing the musicians, the isolation of just hearing the instruments takes away the "cocktail effect", which otherwise can make us focus our hearing on a single performer and almost just hear his single instrument, even though the sounds of the other instruments are masking most of sound of that single instrument. BUT the big problem with this type of recordings (with multi-mono closeup microphones) is that the natural one-point position is lost, this single point in the performing room that can otherwise mimic a single listener's position in the room and how he/she hears the performers and their unique position in the room, the distance to the direct sounds of the instruments and the natural way the reflections reach this single point/listening position.



In the article in the original post of this thread, the author talked about a minimalist recording series called OneMic Series made by the recording engineer John Cuniberti. In his recordings, it's easy to hear the benefits of the single-point recordings as long as I can see the musicians, it sounds pretty natural in the way that the sounds from the different instruments are not masking each other when all "the pieces fall in place" distance-wise to each other. BUT if I shut my eyes and just listen to the sound the problems and what is missed are pretty clear to me, it sounds a little too washed out and distant. Well, it sounds pretty good anyway... :)

I get the impression that many participants in this thread are actually professionals, or at least semi-pros, working with sound production. So you know this. You know there are challenges, how different microphones work, and - you know how to fix things, so the end result is a recording that can render a truly realistic projection of an event. It was possible. It could be done. You did an excellent job.

I posted a link somewhere here, on a Hesperion XXI ensemble recording, which from the video looks like it was made up from several close-mics. It sound very good, and surely the sound is far more realistic than the visual picture I get of the artists performing on a flat screen.

A different example can be the MA Recordings productions, such as the Nama (Puente Celeste). A masterpiece, with minimalistic approach in the recording technique. This also sound very realistic and very good.

So very different techniques and methods can give good results.

But to achieve a realistic rendering of the event, the reproduction system must be able to reproduce it. And this is where the challenge is. It turns out, that most good recordings can give a good presentation that sounds quite realistic, if the reproduction system is good enough.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,208
Likes
7,587
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
I get the impression that many participants in this thread are actually professionals, or at least semi-pros, working with sound production. So you know this. You know there are challenges, how different microphones work, and - you know how to fix things, so the end result is a recording that can render a truly realistic projection of an event. It was possible. It could be done. You did an excellent job.

I posted a link somewhere here, on a Hesperion XXI ensemble recording, which from the video looks like it was made up from several close-mics. It sound very good, and surely the sound is far more realistic than the visual picture I get of the artists performing on a flat screen.

A different example can be the MA Recordings productions, such as the Nama (Puente Celeste). A masterpiece, with minimalistic approach in the recording technique. This also sound very realistic and very good.

So very different techniques and methods can give good results.

But to achieve a realistic rendering of the event, the reproduction system must be able to reproduce it. And this is where the challenge is. It turns out, that most good recordings can give a good presentation that sounds quite realistic, if the reproduction system is good enough.
My sense is that the biggest bottleneck are the speakers. Transducers will be bottlenecks, speakers present the greatest number of problems. I'd say the dual transducers required for LP playback are next [in large part because there's two processes involved], with microphones seeming to have the fewest problems. Which doesn't mean microphones do not have the generic issues of transducers, but that they simply have fewer. That said, the Hesperion XX you cited is a good example of multi-miking, but most of the Hesperion XX recordings [for Astree and Naive] are minimally mic-ed:

 

Kvalsvoll

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Audio Company
Joined
Apr 25, 2019
Messages
878
Likes
1,643
Location
Norway
My sense is that the biggest bottleneck are the speakers.
It is. Though room acoustics will also be a limiting factor in ordinary living rooms, because implementation of sufficient acoustic treatment is not viable in any room but dedicated listening rooms and studios.
 

Soundmixer

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
433
Likes
296
Regarding recording vs live, I have to say recording is actually much better than live.
Some of the better singers and musicians I have worked with think otherwise.
In a recording, the mic is usually placed right next to the instrument or the singer's mouth. This is akin to placing your ears at those position. Nobody listens at those positions in a live performance.
This logic is flawed. The position of the microphone is a capture position, not a listening position. If you put your ears in a capture position, it does not sound very good. That is one of many reasons you don't put listeners in capture positions.
All the subtle details, such as sound from opening of lips, breathing, bow sliding on the strings and other subtle sounds cannot be heard in a live performance.
I am not sure the opening of lips makes an audibly capturable sound. However, whether you can hear the bowing of strings and other subtle sounds depends highly on where you sit. Sit in the front few rows, and this can certainly be heard. The further you move away, those sounds are lost in the reverberation of the space - which is exactly why you place microphones close to the performers, and not at listening positions.
 

Soundmixer

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
433
Likes
296
Every time I go to rock/pop concert, I am reminded that one does not go to a concert to listen to a particular song in its most optimum presentation (acoustically it's downright awful)
Here is another perspective. Change that genre to acoustically based music, and you do go to a concert hall to hear it in its most optimum presentation. Rock and Pop music involves a lot of electronic amplification, which actually sounds better recorded than live. You can control and shape the sound better in a studio than you can live.
 
OP
MattHooper

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,808
I am not sure the opening of lips makes an audibly capturable sound. However, whether you can hear the bowing of strings and other subtle sounds depends highly on where you sit. Sit in the front few rows, and this can certainly be heard. The further you move away, those sounds are lost in the reverberation of the space - which is exactly why you place microphones close to the performers, and not at listening positions.

Agreed. I always favored the close seats at the symphony and certainly heard lots of texture, which is likely one reason I like to hear it reproduced (vs the more distant "everything melded in to the hall sound) recordings many other classical fans seem to like).
 

Soundmixer

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
433
Likes
296
Quite often the live performance is nothing like the final mixed studio recording... which is why many commercial "live" concerts use backing tracks and partial or full lip syncing.
Actually, this is not quite right. Lip sync is usually used because the performer is doing a lot of movement while trying to sing. Most "performers" can't sing very well live, let alone sing AND move at the same time. That is why lip sync is used. Backing tracks are used when a performer (or real singer) doesn't have live background vocals. Pop music is notorious for using lip sync for live performances of the lead vocal, but may have real background singers - so no need for backing tracks. Everything depends on the difficulty of the production itself, and/or the skills of the talent.
 
Last edited:

JSmith

Master Contributor
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
5,153
Likes
13,213
Location
Algol Perseus

Kvalsvoll

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Audio Company
Joined
Apr 25, 2019
Messages
878
Likes
1,643
Location
Norway
In the article in the original post of this thread, the author talked about a minimalist recording series called OneMic Series made by the recording engineer John Cuniberti. In his recordings, it's easy to hear the benefits of the single-point recordings as long as I can see the musicians, it sounds pretty natural in the way that the sounds from the different instruments are not masking each other when all "the pieces fall in place" distance-wise to each other. BUT if I shut my eyes and just listen to the sound the problems and what is missed are pretty clear to me, it sounds a little too washed out and distant. Well, it sounds pretty good anyway... :)
It sounds very good. Expecting a sort of mono sound with no 3D, it is obviously not a single mono mic, rather a stereo mic in one unit, here they use a stereo ribbon mic, there is a 2min clip that explains how, helpful if you start out being ignorant like me.
 

Soundmixer

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
433
Likes
296


:cool:


JSmith
I would not use these guys as an example of lip-syncing. They never sang anything, whether it was a studio or live. There were always "ghost" singers singing for them in the studio, and those vocals were usually used for their (so-called) live performances.
 

Ricardus

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 15, 2022
Messages
843
Likes
1,153
Location
Northern GA
I would not use these guys as an example of lip-syncing. They never sang anything, whether it was a studio or live. There were always "ghost" singers singing for them in the studio, and those vocals were usually used for their (so-called) live performances.
Which was baffling to me. If you're going to manufacture stars by putting them on MTV 1000 times a day, why not manufacture them out of the guys who CAN sing, and who actually DID sing on the record? Right? Just put them in the damn video.
 

Waxx

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2021
Messages
1,931
Likes
7,688
Location
Wodecq, Hainaut, Belgium
Which was baffling to me. If you're going to manufacture stars by putting them on MTV 1000 times a day, why not manufacture them out of the guys who CAN sing, and who actually DID sing on the record? Right? Just put them in the damn video.
It happens all the time, even in genre's where you don't expect it. This Belgian punk classic is not sung by the artist (Plastic Bertrand), but by his producer Lou Deprijck (2man sound), and the artist was only involved after the total production was done. Lou did not want to perform it himself because he was known for cheesy disco and latin hits with his 2man sound and would not been taken serious by the punks. Later on he also made a lot of 2tone ska btw.

 
Top Bottom