I love listening to Paul. I had a 2 Inch 16 track studio in the 1980s and plan to get back into it. My choices were always. Atmosphere Instrument tuning Microphone choice and placement Headphone mix Tape bias and adjustment to that specific reel so what you put in was coming out 100% accurate. Then start any EQ to fine tune. But I can understand where Paul says it is the mix because that is where you create the depth and space and imagery of all the parts. But you must have quality parts to mix or the mix ends up being the fix.
For all the talk about how other gear contributes to the quality of the signal chain, I think that the two most important components for a really engaging listening experience are a transducer that you like, and the quality of the mix in the recording itself, so long as the format is something passable. I know that might be heresy, and it's not to say nothing else matters, but I get as much or more out of one of the Audiophile Masters tracks over a dongle DAC and Koss kph30is as I do out of an acceptably-mixed track on a more expensive rig. Euphonic speaker/ headphone + an exceptional track = heaven.
I was thinking that creating an environment where the musicians really love to play. :) But that sounds very real that the mix matters, and obviously microphone placement. Listen to Olafur Àrnalds Chopin Project some time. It's so interesting how that recording was done. It really has that sense of being there, even if it isn't the purest of all recordings. Made me think more than twice.
You said you have never heard a piano recording sound like what you got from 3 microphones mixed in an old console... I think audiophiles are really behind what studio musicians get nowadays in terms of recording. The Synchron Stage Vienna offers a fairly cheap vst piano recording of a Steinway D-274 with 11 microphone positions and 5 stereo channels.
@5:00 "...little, touchy compressors..." 1) When is any compression a good thing? The sound, with all of its dynamics, is in the master recording. Why compress it -- at all? Why spoil even 1% of it? Why suck any of the life out of it? 2) What do those little, touchy compressors do to the sound? I must be missing something, since studios use them, and even you, Paul, seem to be a fan of them. 3) Why is their active augmentation of the original recording better than the original recording? @5:02 "...some equalize (equalization?)..." 4) Why is a repair of the recording necessary? Should the recording be done correctly, so that no repairs are needed? @5:03 "...everything to get it to sound like it's natural" Paul, I am not sure that your definition of "natural" is actually "natural". I suspect that your compression and equalization actions are giving your ears a more pleasing sounding result. However, that result is not "natural". People use tone controls at home, to compensate for issues with their equipment / rooms, etc. Are you doing the same, on the creation side of the sound? I wish that I lived within two or three hours driving distance from your place of business (I am in NJ), so that I could hear your IRS room with your recordings and my cherry-picked recordings (it is good to use recordings that you are familiar with). And I would also love to hear a pristine master recording of an instrument and a singer's voice and compare it to your finished product, so that I would truly understand what is what, and why it is done, and should it be done. I would fly out to you, but my right ear does not equalize on the decent. It is a painful experience, and takes two or three days to fully recover / equalize. Until then, I lose most of that ear's hearing. So driving is my only choice. Cheers!
Capturing the performances incorporating multiple mic techniques simultaneously (yielding various perspectives w/proximity, width and depth), then assembling these recorded elements into a creation of musical expression, is challenging. Compression used at this level doesn't rob the track of dynamics, nor does it cast a veil atop an otherwise transparent capture. Skillful application actually results in the opposite... ie, it fleshes out greater punch and fullness, ... adding a level of cohesion to the overall sound. Some elements/tracks simply sound better ran through a high end compressor. It's worth noting this compression or leveling gear is of the highest quality and compression ratios are often subtle... 1:1.25, etc. It's creative process, and implementing any slight change is A-B'd back and forth, absolutely assuring the step is a positive one. There is such a thing as too much dynamic range. We all love unadulterated transients, but massive peak to average level can bury a key component to the mix. Taming that ratio slightly can bring that component up to the appropriate level relative to all else. The Chesky type model of performance in a room, captured thru a couple mics ... can produce stunning results. So can multi mic'd captures that use compression. Neither are easy, both are valid, as there's superb examples of both.
@@FOH3663 "Neither are easy, both are valid, as there's superb examples of both." Agreed. As to the "leveling gear is of the highest quality"... I have never seen anyone use those brands in their homes. And there are no shortages of wealthy people that have stereos in excess of $¼million, and none of them use those brands for playback in homes. I do not have access to all of those people. So perhaps there are exceptions. But I know some of those wealthy people, from my visits to high-end stores, where I am friends with the owners. If those wealthy people could get better sound quality from studio equipment, they would buy it yesterday. I have heard top-tier, high-end pre-amps, in excess of $25,000 in people's homes, that sound glorious. So I am not yet convinced that the studios use the highest quality gear, especially based on how bad, so much of what they shovel out to the world, their songs sound. Until someone, somewhere, makes available to me a stem from a master recording, for me to compare to their final product, I remain convinced that the studios over-process just about everything. Like a child in a candy store, the studio personnel cannot resist playing with their expensive studio toys. So they process and process and process. And although it is difficult to mike everything perfectly, please keep in mind that this is not a new challenge. The studios have had decades, multi-generations of people, to figure it out. It is their business. They do that work nearly every day of the year. They should know where to place everything. They should know it in their sleep. Occasionally I could understand that they run into something unique. But with 50, 60+ years of them producing recordings, they should know how to solve every recording session issue, with speed and correctness. It should be rare for them to need to "fix" recording problems, after the fact, with compressors and equalizers. If the studio personnel believe that some instrument needs to be run through an equalizer, then they should contact the instrument's manufacturer and tell them that their instrument does not sound right, and they (the manufacturer) should fix it, so that the studio does not have to fix it, post recording. The studio personnel should tell the musicians that they are using instruments that do not sound right. When, for example, the studio's personnel want to boost the bass guitar, they run it though all manner of boxes, such as equalizers, which ruins the "real" sound of the bass guitar. Instead, the studio personnel should be increasing the bass guitar's gain, on the stem containing the bass guitar. That would leave the bass guitar's sound unmolested, and sounding real. I want to hear the bass guitar; not the box that the studio ran it through. I could go on, with instrument after instrument, and how the studio's personnel screw it up. Not every time. But they screw up recordings more than they get them right. No other private business would stay in business with that track record. But if you like a song, you have no choice but to accept the only release that is made available. Consider re-masters. The studios are telling the world that they keep getting it wrong; that they are releasing re-master after re-master, to make up for their previous, screwed-up releases. And they re-master what has already been remastered. So they are admitting that their fix was screwed up, too, and yet another fix was needed. Enough is enough with the studio's incompetent personnel. It's about time that they get their act together. We cannot keep waiting entire lifetimes to probably never hear our favorite songs with great sound quality.
@@NoEgg4u "never seen use those brands in their homes" I didn't mention any. That said, there'd be little reason for HiFi enthusiasts to use compression. Aside from custom signal paths/processing, here's some compressor mfrs you may be aware of; Elysia, from Germany Manley, US based, just a couple examples. You're not convinced studios use the best gear, especially because... "all the bad stuff they release" ...I'm paraphrasing. You're using "studios" in the broadest sense in your argument, yet clearly we're discussing here, the finest quality studios and releases... ie., Octave for example. As to engineers not able to resist knob twiddling, ... I'm guessing there are many, but that's not who we're discussing, right? We're discussing the finest studios and mastering engineers. All your thoughts about mic placement and the prowess of studio personnel dealing with decades old techniques... really could not be more incorrect. You're in the vast majority however, few individuals grasp the challenges at hand. Besides, many of the mass market over compressed examples are the result of the act wanting subjectively louder release. Engineers fight this daily. "Fixing recording problems after the fact, with comps and EQs" ... that really helps me understand your perspective. That's not it at all, but it does illustrate your knowledge regarding studios and mastering. But again, you're in the majority. Few are fully aware of the challenges of capture, as well as the benefits of compression. Essentially everyone in this hobby, yourself included, hear about the use of compression as a tool, and insist it's bad ... regardless whether it is or not. - Poorly executed compression sounds bad. Well executed compression sounds superb. Although I didn't reference sweetening via EQ, which is perfectly fine... often making a great recording into a superb recording. No, we're focused on compression. Excessive and unusable dynamic range, can bury a critical element in a mix. Well executed compression turns "burried" into ideal. Example; "you want to hear the bass, not the box it's ran thru". I suspect your all time favorite bass recording is passed thru a compressor. The peak-to-average energy in most bass techniques require comps to turn them into high quality release-able content... fattening it up a giving it punchy clarity when needed. I didn't frivolously comment about this. I wanted to share with others what they're not aware of. I'll be glad to answer even more specific questions. Compression isn't bad, poorly executed compression is. Thanks
@@FOH3663 You are correct that I do not know what goes on in the studios, and their challenges. How can anyone know, without either being there, or without them releasing unedited footage for their day's work? The only tangible evidence the public has is what shows up for sale. And most of it is bad. So what else can the public conclude, other than either the studio's equipment sucks, or the people using that equipment are incompetent? You make good points. But it all still leads to the studios rarely getting it right. At some point, the manager of a team tells their staff to either get it right, or seek employment elsewhere. Maybe it is the fault of those running the studios? Maybe they are instructing the engineers to screw up the sound quality (because the person in charge thinks it sounds better, because he never heard a high-end stereo?). The studios never release before and after samples of anything. The studios never release a singer's voice, or an instrument, as it is on the master tapes, and also as it is on their completed release to the public. So the public cannot know what they initially had to work with on their master tapes. The public has no way to know if they improved that sound, or ruined that sound. Based on the congestion found in nearly every release, I conclude that it is the latter; that they studio personnel create the congestion. I do not believe that the master tapes have congestion. I do not believe that you can un-congest music. If it is possible, then point me to that gear, and I will clean up all of the bad sounding songs that I have. Consider the following song: Artist: Evelyn "Champagne" King Song: I'm In Love Album: I'm In Love (Expanded Edition) us.7digital.com/artist/evelyn-champagne-king-(2)/release/im-in-love-expanded-edition-6721517 The above album has 3 versions of the song (tracks 1, 9, and 13). They differ in length. Tracks 1 and 9 are sonic messes. Track 13 sounds great. And even tracks 1 and 9 sound different from each other; they suck differently than each other. How do the studio personnel make the same song, from the same master tapes, all sound different? How do the studio personnel not hear how bad tracks 1 and 9 are? I have several examples of songs, from different genres (pop, rock, dance, vocal), that have the same issues; the exact same song, even the same length, where most suck, and one sounds right. That has to be the human beings in the studio screwing them up. The songs do not produce themselves. I have yet to have anyone explain to me how the above happens. Not just why it happened (meaning in a specific instance). But why is it happening decade after decade, on every label, for every genre? Why do studios make re-masters, if they supposedly have the best equipment and supposedly know what they are doing? Their re-master is an admission of their initial bad work. Why do the re-masters almost always suck more than what they were supposed fixing. The quality control of music is abysmal. Is it the equipment? Is it the personnel? Is it both? Ultimately, it is the personnel. Because the personnel should not use bad equipment. If they are using bad equipment, then the personnel are to blame for using bad equipment. Therefore, my conclusion is incompetent personnel. Perhaps it is the studio's executives that are giving marching orders that result in the bad sound quality. They are personnel, too. Ergo, the studio's personnel are incompetent. Not all. But far too many are, and it shows in their myriad of bad releases that span the decades. Let's not confuse "effort" with "results". I have no doubt that studio personnel want to do the right thing, and spend a great deal of time trying. But incompetent personnel that work long hours still produce sonic messes. Do you use Microsoft Office? Would you continue to use it if it kept crashing, or if it kept stalling, or if it kept giving errors, or if it was slow, or if it corrupted your data, etc? And would you make excuses for the programmers, because the programming code is so complicated? -- and it is incredibly complicated. Of course you would not keep making excuses for them. At some point, you would conclude that the programmers are incompetent. (That was only an analogy -- Microsoft knows what they are doing) Please stop defending incompetence. It is a license for it to continue to fester. i.ytimg.com/vi/jlcSkypbRnw/hqdefault.jpg
What I just heard is that mic selection and mic placement are the most important steps, and then the engineer has to how best to construct or reconstruct the musical performance.
A microphone placed at the UNDERBELLY of the piano?? Is this what it really sounds like in the room?, would I listen to the piano sitting UNDER the piano just to hear more fundamental bass from the lower strings?, I am sure the action noises from the sustain pedal levers and their traces were a real challenge to be rid of...........SHEESH ! Back the mic off the instrument, capture it all in the room with just a single point stereo unit (you've got a beauty in your arsenal but WON'T use it as such!) , as that is what I am waiting to hear through my system! If Octave produces it, I will buy it (O:
“Misbegotten youth” is right! Goodness all those stories in your book were so crazy!!
I love listening to Paul. I had a 2 Inch 16 track studio in the 1980s and plan to get back into it.
My choices were always.
Atmosphere
Instrument tuning
Microphone choice and placement
Headphone mix
Tape bias and adjustment to that specific reel so what you put in was coming out 100% accurate.
Then start any EQ to fine tune.
But I can understand where Paul says it is the mix because that is where you create the depth and space and imagery of all the parts. But you must have quality parts to mix or the mix ends up being the fix.
For all the talk about how other gear contributes to the quality of the signal chain, I think that the two most important components for a really engaging listening experience are a transducer that you like, and the quality of the mix in the recording itself, so long as the format is something passable. I know that might be heresy, and it's not to say nothing else matters, but I get as much or more out of one of the Audiophile Masters tracks over a dongle DAC and Koss kph30is as I do out of an acceptably-mixed track on a more expensive rig. Euphonic speaker/ headphone + an exceptional track = heaven.
I was thinking that creating an environment where the musicians really love to play. :) But that sounds very real that the mix matters, and obviously microphone placement. Listen to Olafur Àrnalds Chopin Project some time. It's so interesting how that recording was done. It really has that sense of being there, even if it isn't the purest of all recordings. Made me think more than twice.
Looking forward to the Octave record studio videos. Bring it on Paul !
' i gave em to grandma, because we could all die....' LMAO
You said you have never heard a piano recording sound like what you got from 3 microphones mixed in an old console... I think audiophiles are really behind what studio musicians get nowadays in terms of recording. The Synchron Stage Vienna offers a fairly cheap vst piano recording of a Steinway D-274 with 11 microphone positions and 5 stereo channels.
@5:00 "...little, touchy compressors..."
1) When is any compression a good thing?
The sound, with all of its dynamics, is in the master recording. Why compress it -- at all? Why spoil even 1% of it? Why suck any of the life out of it?
2) What do those little, touchy compressors do to the sound?
I must be missing something, since studios use them, and even you, Paul, seem to be a fan of them.
3) Why is their active augmentation of the original recording better than the original recording?
@5:02 "...some equalize (equalization?)..."
4) Why is a repair of the recording necessary?
Should the recording be done correctly, so that no repairs are needed?
@5:03 "...everything to get it to sound like it's natural"
Paul, I am not sure that your definition of "natural" is actually "natural".
I suspect that your compression and equalization actions are giving your ears a more pleasing sounding result. However, that result is not "natural".
People use tone controls at home, to compensate for issues with their equipment / rooms, etc.
Are you doing the same, on the creation side of the sound?
I wish that I lived within two or three hours driving distance from your place of business (I am in NJ), so that I could hear your IRS room with your recordings and my cherry-picked recordings (it is good to use recordings that you are familiar with). And I would also love to hear a pristine master recording of an instrument and a singer's voice and compare it to your finished product, so that I would truly understand what is what, and why it is done, and should it be done.
I would fly out to you, but my right ear does not equalize on the decent. It is a painful experience, and takes two or three days to fully recover / equalize. Until then, I lose most of that ear's hearing. So driving is my only choice.
Cheers!
Capturing the performances incorporating multiple mic techniques simultaneously (yielding various perspectives w/proximity, width and depth), then assembling these recorded elements into a creation of musical expression, is challenging.
Compression used at this level doesn't rob the track of dynamics, nor does it cast a veil atop an otherwise transparent capture.
Skillful application actually results in the opposite... ie, it fleshes out greater punch and fullness, ... adding a level of cohesion to the overall sound.
Some elements/tracks simply sound better ran through a high end compressor.
It's worth noting this compression or leveling gear is of the highest quality and compression ratios are often subtle... 1:1.25, etc.
It's creative process, and implementing any slight change is A-B'd back and forth, absolutely assuring the step is a positive one.
There is such a thing as too much dynamic range. We all love unadulterated transients, but massive peak to average level can bury a key component to the mix. Taming that ratio slightly can bring that component up to the appropriate level relative to all else.
The Chesky type model of performance in a room, captured thru a couple mics ... can produce stunning results.
So can multi mic'd captures that use compression.
Neither are easy, both are valid, as there's superb examples of both.
@@FOH3663 "Neither are easy, both are valid, as there's superb examples of both."
Agreed.
As to the "leveling gear is of the highest quality"...
I have never seen anyone use those brands in their homes. And there are no shortages of wealthy people that have stereos in excess of $¼million, and none of them use those brands for playback in homes. I do not have access to all of those people. So perhaps there are exceptions. But I know some of those wealthy people, from my visits to high-end stores, where I am friends with the owners. If those wealthy people could get better sound quality from studio equipment, they would buy it yesterday.
I have heard top-tier, high-end pre-amps, in excess of $25,000 in people's homes, that sound glorious. So I am not yet convinced that the studios use the highest quality gear, especially based on how bad, so much of what they shovel out to the world, their songs sound.
Until someone, somewhere, makes available to me a stem from a master recording, for me to compare to their final product, I remain convinced that the studios over-process just about everything. Like a child in a candy store, the studio personnel cannot resist playing with their expensive studio toys. So they process and process and process.
And although it is difficult to mike everything perfectly, please keep in mind that this is not a new challenge.
The studios have had decades, multi-generations of people, to figure it out. It is their business. They do that work nearly every day of the year. They should know where to place everything. They should know it in their sleep. Occasionally I could understand that they run into something unique. But with 50, 60+ years of them producing recordings, they should know how to solve every recording session issue, with speed and correctness.
It should be rare for them to need to "fix" recording problems, after the fact, with compressors and equalizers.
If the studio personnel believe that some instrument needs to be run through an equalizer, then they should contact the instrument's manufacturer and tell them that their instrument does not sound right, and they (the manufacturer) should fix it, so that the studio does not have to fix it, post recording.
The studio personnel should tell the musicians that they are using instruments that do not sound right.
When, for example, the studio's personnel want to boost the bass guitar, they run it though all manner of boxes, such as equalizers, which ruins the "real" sound of the bass guitar.
Instead, the studio personnel should be increasing the bass guitar's gain, on the stem containing the bass guitar. That would leave the bass guitar's sound unmolested, and sounding real.
I want to hear the bass guitar; not the box that the studio ran it through.
I could go on, with instrument after instrument, and how the studio's personnel screw it up. Not every time. But they screw up recordings more than they get them right. No other private business would stay in business with that track record. But if you like a song, you have no choice but to accept the only release that is made available.
Consider re-masters.
The studios are telling the world that they keep getting it wrong; that they are releasing re-master after re-master, to make up for their previous, screwed-up releases. And they re-master what has already been remastered. So they are admitting that their fix was screwed up, too, and yet another fix was needed.
Enough is enough with the studio's incompetent personnel. It's about time that they get their act together. We cannot keep waiting entire lifetimes to probably never hear our favorite songs with great sound quality.
@@NoEgg4u
"never seen use those brands in their homes"
I didn't mention any.
That said, there'd be little reason for HiFi enthusiasts to use compression.
Aside from custom signal paths/processing, here's some compressor mfrs you may be aware of;
Elysia, from Germany
Manley, US based, just a couple examples.
You're not convinced studios use the best gear, especially because... "all the bad stuff they release" ...I'm paraphrasing.
You're using "studios" in the broadest sense in your argument, yet clearly we're discussing here, the finest quality studios and releases... ie., Octave for example.
As to engineers not able to resist knob twiddling, ... I'm guessing there are many, but that's not who we're discussing, right?
We're discussing the finest studios and mastering engineers.
All your thoughts about mic placement and the prowess of studio personnel dealing with decades old techniques... really could not be more incorrect. You're in the vast majority however, few individuals grasp the challenges at hand.
Besides, many of the mass market over compressed examples are the result of the act wanting subjectively louder release.
Engineers fight this daily.
"Fixing recording problems after the fact, with comps and EQs" ... that really helps me understand your perspective.
That's not it at all, but it does illustrate your knowledge regarding studios and mastering.
But again, you're in the majority.
Few are fully aware of the challenges of capture, as well as the benefits of compression.
Essentially everyone in this hobby, yourself included, hear about the use of compression as a tool, and insist it's bad ... regardless whether it is or not.
- Poorly executed compression sounds bad. Well executed compression sounds superb.
Although I didn't reference sweetening via EQ, which is perfectly fine... often making a great recording into a superb recording.
No, we're focused on compression.
Excessive and unusable dynamic range, can bury a critical element in a mix. Well executed compression turns "burried" into ideal.
Example; "you want to hear the bass, not the box it's ran thru".
I suspect your all time favorite bass recording is passed thru a compressor.
The peak-to-average energy in most bass techniques require comps to turn them into high quality release-able content... fattening it up a giving it punchy clarity when needed.
I didn't frivolously comment about this. I wanted to share with others what they're not aware of.
I'll be glad to answer even more specific questions.
Compression isn't bad, poorly executed compression is.
Thanks
@@FOH3663 You are correct that I do not know what goes on in the studios, and their challenges.
How can anyone know, without either being there, or without them releasing unedited footage for their day's work?
The only tangible evidence the public has is what shows up for sale. And most of it is bad.
So what else can the public conclude, other than either the studio's equipment sucks, or the people using that equipment are incompetent?
You make good points. But it all still leads to the studios rarely getting it right.
At some point, the manager of a team tells their staff to either get it right, or seek employment elsewhere.
Maybe it is the fault of those running the studios? Maybe they are instructing the engineers to screw up the sound quality (because the person in charge thinks it sounds better, because he never heard a high-end stereo?).
The studios never release before and after samples of anything.
The studios never release a singer's voice, or an instrument, as it is on the master tapes, and also as it is on their completed release to the public.
So the public cannot know what they initially had to work with on their master tapes. The public has no way to know if they improved that sound, or ruined that sound. Based on the congestion found in nearly every release, I conclude that it is the latter; that they studio personnel create the congestion.
I do not believe that the master tapes have congestion.
I do not believe that you can un-congest music. If it is possible, then point me to that gear, and I will clean up all of the bad sounding songs that I have.
Consider the following song:
Artist: Evelyn "Champagne" King
Song: I'm In Love
Album: I'm In Love (Expanded Edition)
us.7digital.com/artist/evelyn-champagne-king-(2)/release/im-in-love-expanded-edition-6721517
The above album has 3 versions of the song (tracks 1, 9, and 13). They differ in length.
Tracks 1 and 9 are sonic messes.
Track 13 sounds great.
And even tracks 1 and 9 sound different from each other; they suck differently than each other.
How do the studio personnel make the same song, from the same master tapes, all sound different?
How do the studio personnel not hear how bad tracks 1 and 9 are?
I have several examples of songs, from different genres (pop, rock, dance, vocal), that have the same issues; the exact same song, even the same length, where most suck, and one sounds right.
That has to be the human beings in the studio screwing them up. The songs do not produce themselves.
I have yet to have anyone explain to me how the above happens. Not just why it happened (meaning in a specific instance). But why is it happening decade after decade, on every label, for every genre?
Why do studios make re-masters, if they supposedly have the best equipment and supposedly know what they are doing? Their re-master is an admission of their initial bad work.
Why do the re-masters almost always suck more than what they were supposed fixing.
The quality control of music is abysmal.
Is it the equipment?
Is it the personnel?
Is it both?
Ultimately, it is the personnel. Because the personnel should not use bad equipment. If they are using bad equipment, then the personnel are to blame for using bad equipment. Therefore, my conclusion is incompetent personnel.
Perhaps it is the studio's executives that are giving marching orders that result in the bad sound quality. They are personnel, too. Ergo, the studio's personnel are incompetent. Not all. But far too many are, and it shows in their myriad of bad releases that span the decades.
Let's not confuse "effort" with "results".
I have no doubt that studio personnel want to do the right thing, and spend a great deal of time trying. But incompetent personnel that work long hours still produce sonic messes.
Do you use Microsoft Office?
Would you continue to use it if it kept crashing, or if it kept stalling, or if it kept giving errors, or if it was slow, or if it corrupted your data, etc?
And would you make excuses for the programmers, because the programming code is so complicated? -- and it is incredibly complicated.
Of course you would not keep making excuses for them. At some point, you would conclude that the programmers are incompetent.
(That was only an analogy -- Microsoft knows what they are doing)
Please stop defending incompetence. It is a license for it to continue to fester.
i.ytimg.com/vi/jlcSkypbRnw/hqdefault.jpg
What I just heard is that mic selection and mic placement are the most important steps, and then the engineer has to how best to construct or reconstruct the musical performance.
Yeah, and putting one on the underbelly of the piano is NOT my idea of what it really sounds like! SHEESH ! Octave is getting into acoustic gimickry !
Yes! Sign me up for the Octave records series 😃
First you need something that you want to record. How does it sound?
Pressing the record button?
I have a question.
What sounds better?
Music off a CD or music from a CD as stored data.
Initial capture!!!! Good in = good or better out!
You can’t fix it in post if it’s not there to begin with.
love to your sister mr paul
I seem to hear alot of what sounds like doors closing in some recordings with my system
Not sure who to attribute this to, maybe Al Schmidt. Great = 5Gs
Good song
Good performance
Good room
Good recording
Good mix
A microphone placed at the UNDERBELLY of the piano?? Is this what it really sounds like in the room?, would I listen to the piano sitting UNDER the piano just to hear more fundamental bass from the lower strings?, I am sure the action noises from the sustain pedal levers and their traces were a real challenge to be rid of...........SHEESH !
Back the mic off the instrument, capture it all in the room with just a single point stereo unit (you've got a beauty in your arsenal but WON'T use it as such!) , as that is what I am waiting to hear through my system! If Octave produces it, I will buy it (O:
“Fix it in the mix”
Paul, this one is especially for you... LET'S GO BRANDON!
I'm am LGBer myself but we need to be careful in Paul's house.
The most important steps in recording? Why the use of gold plated banana plugs of course.
Do you only record big zeros so they don't get any payment...
I would not call Zuill Bailey a big zero. He is one of the finest cellists in the world.
@@vinylrules4838 & Don Grusin is w o n d e r f u l
@@googoo-gjoob Same ole' same ole' regurgitated swill...
@@vinylrules4838 Cello, yeah, not much going on in that world. They seem to be getting anything they don't have to actually PAY to perform....
dude they mic pianos like that all the time. Nothing revolutionary
Start 1:25
Have something worth recording...so far octave players are swill...boring...abysmal. no one still breathing listens to such boring un inspired stuff
Your sister was being very responsible and you were NOT!