Hey all, I've been hearing about audiophile-quality recordings (albums), and it seems these folks are real particular about how the album was recorded. They will even list how the mikes were positioned. Anyone have any input on what some common 'audiophile' techniques are? It seems they do some X Y stuff for large ensambles, but what about smaller groups? Lets have it....
Audiophile recording techniques anyone?
- Thread starter cuibono
- Start date
mshilarious
Banned
cuibono said:
Audiophiles probably like to be particular about how albums were recorded, but odds are they have no idea what concerns are involved. Probably they are too busy worried about time incoherence caused by cable capacitance or skin effect or something completely silly like that.
So these aren't 'audiophile' techniques, they are standard professional recording engineer techniques.
But if you really want to learn about mic techniques, read this:
http://www.dpamicrophones.com/
Look for the "Microphone University" page.
Steely Dan are audiophiles for sure, and I know that they don't go for any EQ on the individual tracks. They do go for close micing and other standard techniques, though. Also, they hated "Royal Scam" because of some tape malfunction that I can't hear at all! I like that album a lot, in fact.
Most stereo audiophiles would blanch at how most big albums are recorded. Yeah, high grade stuff is used but there is a general half-assedness to recording that few people want to acknowledge.
There are a few producers like Mutt Lange that are total perfectionists sure, but a LOT of recording are happy accidents.
Plus there is no one way to do anything, nor is there necessarily a right way. What is wrong on one album may be perfect for another.
Heck, just miking a snare can be a hit or miss affair from the POV of selecting the mic. One time I went thru most of the mic locker trying to get a particular sound that the band wanted and we ended up with a D112 on the snare (under mik) with an AT4030 on top! It sounded perfect for the recording, but the D112 was literally the last thing I'd have ever thought of using, and I hate the 4030.
There are a few producers like Mutt Lange that are total perfectionists sure, but a LOT of recording are happy accidents.
Plus there is no one way to do anything, nor is there necessarily a right way. What is wrong on one album may be perfect for another.
Heck, just miking a snare can be a hit or miss affair from the POV of selecting the mic. One time I went thru most of the mic locker trying to get a particular sound that the band wanted and we ended up with a D112 on the snare (under mik) with an AT4030 on top! It sounded perfect for the recording, but the D112 was literally the last thing I'd have ever thought of using, and I hate the 4030.
There are a couple things I have heard were issues: for instance, I've read a bit about preserving phase relationships for ALL the instruments, in stereo, because this information is processed in our heads to locate the instrument as a single source (aka soundstaging). So this makes reverb a big issue, in that artificially added reverb is will not preserve the image location, and that the acoustics of the recording location must provide the 'sound', thus preserving phase information...
Projbalance
New member
A lot of that sounds like it would be used to capture a performance from start to finish as a whole and would require a verly good room and a lot of work in terms of placing instruments, amps, and people as well as where to put mics and how. For most studio projects, that's just not practical for one reason or another. Also, I think most audiophiles are concerned with whether or not the recording sounds like "you're right there" while missing one important piece of thought; it'll never sound like you're there unless you WERE there.
mshilarious
Banned
Projbalance said:
That's very true, and a lot of recording is concerned with creating the illusion of reality by exagerrating sound to make it seem more vivid, whether with mic selection, or EQ, or effects, or clever stereo mic techniques, compression, analog tape compression/distortion, whatever.
And then when you get to the home audio side, there are tube preamps that once again provide harmonic distortion, speakers that are not flat . . .
It's very analogous to photography--people nearly always prefer unrealistic images, whether black & white or with oversaturated color. Nobody wants realistic color; there is no consumer market film with anything resembling realistic color and even most pro films have at least enhanced color.
We like to be lied to.
Yes, Most but not all so called audiophiles, only have a vague idea of what goes into a recording from start to finish, (they may know what mics where used and how they were placed, but don't really know why) let alone what happens after it's put on "tape", the way thing can go ADAD, they may know what sounds good in the end, and that's all they really should care about, same as use.
Most people who think a record sound too compressed or limitted blame the tracking engineer or the mixing engineer, and don't know what the Mastering engineer does.
Skin effect on cable
that good, don't forget about the $1000 exotic wood volune knob...
Most people who think a record sound too compressed or limitted blame the tracking engineer or the mixing engineer, and don't know what the Mastering engineer does.
Skin effect on cable
that good, don't forget about the $1000 exotic wood volune knob...The majority of consumers seem to REALLY not want realistic recordings these days. I do, but my stereo isn't good enough to have a completely natural sounding recording play well. I need the extra punch that most commercial recordings have. But even still, I like records that aren't too manhandled.
I think the reason that records are made the way they are today (lots of compression, limiting, etc.) is that most people do have such poor stereos.
I think the reason that records are made the way they are today (lots of compression, limiting, etc.) is that most people do have such poor stereos.
I think that being an audiophile can have its downsides. For one, a lot of engineers I knew that were obsessed by sound quality tended to forget about performance, and beat the life out of everything until it was sonically perfect crap.
Plus, a lot of music is somewhat lo-fi anyways. I mean... electric guitar is a TOTALLY lo-fi instrument. Rock is fairly lo-fi music. Make it sound good, but don't make it lifeless.
I'll take performance over sound any day.
Plus, a lot of music is somewhat lo-fi anyways. I mean... electric guitar is a TOTALLY lo-fi instrument. Rock is fairly lo-fi music. Make it sound good, but don't make it lifeless.
I'll take performance over sound any day.
Projbalance
New member
I had the iPod going in the car on the way to work and the last song I heard was the rehearsald tape of Joy Division's "Ceremony" from the Heart and Soul box set. This is a very unsophisticated recording, but it occured to me that this is probably the way a "real" group recording would sound if you just stuck a couple mics in a room and recorded the band. Really the only part that sounded completely bollocks was the vocals (not hat Ian Curtis was ever much of a singer) but if you could get that worked out, it really does create a very real 3D image of the sound.