Until recently I was a regular orchestral concert-goer and while I went to the concerts primarily for the music, it was the sense of space around the instruments that I will always remember. I found it quite subtle but certainly apparent.
While I've gone for the music first as well, the sense of space and scale have definitely been aspects I've appreciated in my orchestral concert-going over the years. Most of all, however, I think that the timbre of the instruments and instrument groups is something intoxicating that audio systems, even amazing ones, struggle to approach.
@@maxhirsch7035 I agree. Also, In moments of extreme complexity - like many moments in a Mahler symphony, for example - there is an inner clarity to the sound at concerts that seems very difficult to replicate to the same degree at home.
@@maxhirsch7035 Its called TOO MANY CLOSE MICS and too many electronically mixed channels ! We listen at home and try to be transported to the space where the performance took place. Difficult when it is artificially balanced, edited and mixed like a STUDIO production. Ever notice how the string section doesn't seem to excite the room like the BRASS section does from the deep stage? (unless artificial reverb is injected into the recorded production later). More often then not, when I recorded an orchestral ensemble, I go with the simplicity of STEREO = TWO channels and pull the single point mic out into the concert space 25 to 30' from the stage edge and a boom height of 15' to capture the layers of the instruments across the depth of the stage. You get the room, and the NATURAL acoustic 'mix' as the composer intended! It is the most natural way in my opinion. We have TWO EARS, not 25 or 40 microphone 'ears' like some concert hall engineers deploy over the stage!!! It becomes synthesized and SENSATIONALIZED. It really bugs me when you see a large, LIVE orchestral production with 9 bassists as in the BSO or 8 in the case of the Berlin Phil and an array of mics on short stands at the bottom of the instruments! Well, that tells you right there that our recording WILL NOT be what the audience heard in the venue. The bass will be larger then intended by the composer.
@johnmarchington3146 I like the road you're going down here. I too love orchestral music and live performances of such. It seems Paul is addressing the recording of woodwinds in a studio. One of my favorite pieces is Beethoven's 7th Symphony. The interplay between flute, clarinet, oboe, and bassoons is just spectacular! But, as you've noted it's that "sense of space". Whether live or on a great recording (I'd recommend Reference Recordings) the microphones aren't ever that close to the respective players/instruments. I believe that's the sound that would ideally be recorded.
That’s because you can never have an orchestra in New York listening room. Two separate environments live can never be replicated in your home no matter what anyone says.
Alan Parsons recently did a video interview where he was asked about which microphones were best for which instruments. Very informative. The interviewer was Rick Beato . Worth a watch. If I remember rightly he also recommended Neuman mics for drums. I often wonder how difficult it is to record the female voices without getting too much sibilance?
I bought a Warm Audio microphone of which it’s supposed to simulate the Neumann U87 but it has been nothing but troubles; making crackling noises and inside the mic itself had semi broken connectors which I don’t know if it came like that from the factory or not.
As a listener who has attended live sessions and own a fair amount of recorded music, I have come to the conclusion that the piano is the hardest instrument to record and capture. My gut feeling is that to many studios place inferior mics too close to the instrument. Pianos are large, and you need to capture how the piano interacts with the space in which it is placed. Also, the wrong mic will just not resolve the true sound emanating from the piano. To me it is a type of distortion. I also believe the sampling rate of digital recording needs to be quite high. I think this is where analog playback may have an edge.
To me, recording a solo piano like a nine foot Steinway will expose the flaws in the recording mics used, the media format and the loudspeakers used during playback, more so than other instruments or the human voice. Perhaps it is because you listen to a piano with your whole body, not just your ears. And a piano spans many octaves.
@@volpedo2000 I truly believe your comment hits to the heart of all HIFI confusion and debates. When you consider the musicians, instruments, recording equipment, mixing equipment, and countless components we as consumers use to replicate the "original sound". Now throw in subjective personal taste and try to replicated that from recording to recording. It would be nice if it was simple. I suppose the best each of us can hope for is to find a system pleasing to the ears and within our financial means. Happy listening.
@@tg_ny Your point about listening to a piano with your entire body is the same argument I try and make with a full range speaker. A speaker that can replicate the resonance of a piano string or a vibration of a saxophone you can feel and not just hear is amazing. While it takes some volume to do this, Im not suggesting it has to be at deafening decibel levels. It takes all the pieces in the chain of recording and playback of music. I can't control how the music is produced. All I can do is give it a good place to be reproduced the best I can within my ability and means. Happy listening.
@@bobr9605 I believe pianos really test the coherency of the drivers in a full-range loudspeaker as well how little the crossover interferes with the sound.
The saxophone (clarinet, trumpet, trombone, tuba) mouth is called the bell. The instrument is called a "horn". I think that difficulty has to be based on use case. With close miking (like in a studio), the saxophones and clarinets are a special challenge. Not so much when recording on a real stage with a decent sounding hall. I think that overall, the human voice is the most difficult as we are most familiar with how that sounds. Very often the size of the recorded voice has no proportion to the other instruments being played (piano big, voice smaller).
wind instruments rely on the exit physical wave amplification, so it makes perfect sense that the mic position is important . *a wide angled expanding spectrum of audio), more so than other instruments i didnt know you also did audio recordings, Paul, you are a scholar AND a gentleman 👌🏻
I often find Harpsichords to be instruments that are not quite captured in a recording. Orchestras in general are a real challenge but harpsichords always sound disappointing compared to hearing them live. They are not very portable instruments so you seldom get the chance to hear them. If you have any kind of recordings of this nature then I would love to hear them
Hiii sir I got some project to do it's my first time I got class d amplifier ic which says tas5707 that use digital audio input now what type of bluetooth ic I will reqired for this ic to connect it because I didn't find any information about this I have couple of them around but I don't know how to give audio input to this tas5707 ic any solution for it your response will be really help full for me thankyou ❤
Until recently I was a regular orchestral concert-goer and while I went to the concerts primarily for the music, it was the sense of space around the instruments that I will always remember. I found it quite subtle but certainly apparent.
While I've gone for the music first as well, the sense of space and scale have definitely been aspects I've appreciated in my orchestral concert-going over the years. Most of all, however, I think that the timbre of the instruments and instrument groups is something intoxicating that audio systems, even amazing ones, struggle to approach.
@@maxhirsch7035 I agree. Also, In moments of extreme complexity - like many moments in a Mahler symphony, for example - there is an inner clarity to the sound at concerts that seems very difficult to replicate to the same degree at home.
@@maxhirsch7035 Its called TOO MANY CLOSE MICS and too many electronically mixed channels ! We listen at home and try to be transported to the space where the performance took place. Difficult when it is artificially balanced, edited and mixed like a STUDIO production. Ever notice how the string section doesn't seem to excite the room like the BRASS section does from the deep stage? (unless artificial reverb is injected into the recorded production later).
More often then not, when I recorded an orchestral ensemble, I go with the simplicity of STEREO = TWO channels and pull the single point mic out into the concert space 25 to 30' from the stage edge and a boom height of 15' to capture the layers of the instruments across the depth of the stage. You get the room, and the NATURAL acoustic 'mix' as the composer intended! It is the most natural way in my opinion. We have TWO EARS, not 25 or 40 microphone 'ears' like some concert hall engineers deploy over the stage!!! It becomes synthesized and SENSATIONALIZED.
It really bugs me when you see a large, LIVE orchestral production with 9 bassists as in the BSO or 8 in the case of the Berlin Phil and an array of mics on short stands at the bottom of the instruments! Well, that tells you right there that our recording WILL NOT be what the audience heard in the venue. The bass will be larger then intended by the composer.
@johnmarchington3146 I like the road you're going down here. I too love orchestral music and live performances of such. It seems Paul is addressing the recording of woodwinds in a studio. One of my favorite pieces is Beethoven's 7th Symphony. The interplay between flute, clarinet, oboe, and bassoons is just spectacular! But, as you've noted it's that "sense of space". Whether live or on a great recording (I'd recommend Reference Recordings) the microphones aren't ever that close to the respective players/instruments. I believe that's the sound that would ideally be recorded.
That’s because you can never have an orchestra in New York listening room. Two separate environments live can never be replicated in your home no matter what anyone says.
Alan Parsons recently did a video interview where he was asked about which microphones were best for which instruments. Very informative. The interviewer was Rick Beato . Worth a watch. If I remember rightly he also recommended Neuman mics for drums. I often wonder how difficult it is to record the female voices without getting too much sibilance?
I vote the saxophone! They can really dominate a recording of left untamed. I can never get enough oboe though.
I blow the saxophone too but this is the best explainstion I have heard about record Music
I bought a Warm Audio microphone of which it’s supposed to simulate the Neumann U87 but it has been nothing but troubles; making crackling noises and inside the mic itself had semi broken connectors which I don’t know if it came like that from the factory or not.
As a listener who has attended live sessions and own a fair amount of recorded music, I have come to the conclusion that the piano is the hardest instrument to record and capture. My gut feeling is that to many studios place inferior mics too close to the instrument. Pianos are large, and you need to capture how the piano interacts with the space in which it is placed. Also, the wrong mic will just not resolve the true sound emanating from the piano. To me it is a type of distortion. I also believe the sampling rate of digital recording needs to be quite high. I think this is where analog playback may have an edge.
To me, recording a solo piano like a nine foot Steinway will expose the flaws in the recording mics used, the media format and the loudspeakers used during playback, more so than other instruments or the human voice. Perhaps it is because you listen to a piano with your whole body, not just your ears. And a piano spans many octaves.
According to many engineers and labels piano is the hardest indeed to record and reproduce
@@volpedo2000 I truly believe your comment hits to the heart of all HIFI confusion and debates. When you consider the musicians, instruments, recording equipment, mixing equipment, and countless components we as consumers use to replicate the "original sound". Now throw in subjective personal taste and try to replicated that from recording to recording. It would be nice if it was simple. I suppose the best each of us can hope for is to find a system pleasing to the ears and within our financial means. Happy listening.
@@tg_ny Your point about listening to a piano with your entire body is the same argument I try and make with a full range speaker. A speaker that can replicate the resonance of a piano string or a vibration of a saxophone you can feel and not just hear is amazing. While it takes some volume to do this, Im not suggesting it has to be at deafening decibel levels. It takes all the pieces in the chain of recording and playback of music. I can't control how the music is produced. All I can do is give it a good place to be reproduced the best I can within my ability and means. Happy listening.
@@bobr9605 I believe pianos really test the coherency of the drivers in a full-range loudspeaker as well how little the crossover interferes with the sound.
The saxophone (clarinet, trumpet, trombone, tuba) mouth is called the bell. The instrument is called a "horn".
I think that difficulty has to be based on use case. With close miking (like in a studio), the saxophones and clarinets are a special challenge. Not so much when recording on a real stage with a decent sounding hall. I think that overall, the human voice is the most difficult as we are most familiar with how that sounds. Very often the size of the recorded voice has no proportion to the other instruments being played (piano big, voice smaller).
wind instruments rely on the exit physical wave amplification, so it makes perfect sense that the mic position is important . *a wide angled expanding spectrum of audio), more so than other instruments i didnt know you also did audio recordings, Paul, you are a scholar AND a gentleman 👌🏻
The Clarinet would be particularly hard to record because it is a musical instrument that produces odd overtones approximating a square wave.
I've had biggest problems w/ pianos; the bigger ones especially >> woodwind >> smaller brass/metal percussion due to potential sibilance issues.
Piano or Harp is the common belief for quite some time now.
Chapel Hill is a beautiful area
The most challenging instruments to record are sopran saxophone and accordian.
I often find Harpsichords to be instruments that are not quite captured in a recording. Orchestras in general are a real challenge but harpsichords always sound disappointing compared to hearing them live. They are not very portable instruments so you seldom get the chance to hear them. If you have any kind of recordings of this nature then I would love to hear them
My best recording in woodwinds is a Sennheiser 441 pointed at the keys. A Ribbon mic in good distance helps
I have yet to hear a cymbal sound real ,especially the long decay.
You forgot to mention how you record electric guitars. Especially the ones who use distortion, that would be interesting.
Hiii sir I got some project to do it's my first time I got class d amplifier ic which says tas5707 that use digital audio input now what type of bluetooth ic I will reqired for this ic to connect it because I didn't find any information about this I have couple of them around but I don't know how to give audio input to this tas5707 ic any solution for it your response will be really help full for me thankyou ❤
Awesome knowledge...I love it...
Hi. Have you ever put two microphones inside of two rubber ears attached to a pair of headphones?
Woodwind (& Brass) instruments when recorded properly one can here the dribble leaking out. Yuck! 🤮
@pebbleschan6085 - Aah, that intimate JAZZ CLUB sound 😆.