Members Bruce Swedien Posted December 17, 2006 Members Share Posted December 17, 2006 Stereo Recording... Stereophonic sound recording is a recording and reproduction system consisting of two or more microphones, placed in front of a sound pick-up area, recorded discretely on two or more channels of a multi-track recording device, and then played back on two or more loudspeakers placed in front of a listening area. This system creates the illusion of the recorded sound having direction, position and depth in the area between the loudspeakers. This playback system produces a sound pattern at the listeners ears which our hearing sense interprets as indicating direction and depth of sound field in the limited area between the loudspeakers. In most cases, accurate localization is the goal of a stereophonic image. In other words, when recording a large orchestra, the instruments in the center of the ensemble are accurately reproduced in the area midway between the two playback loudspeakers. Instruments at the sides of the orchestra are reproduced from either the left or the right speaker. Instruments half way between are reproduced halfway to one side and so on... This type of a stereo image is what I would call Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted December 17, 2006 Members Share Posted December 17, 2006 Makes a lot of sense to me. I remember in the late 60's and early 70's when I really started noting what I called a "surrealistic" approach to mixing. While I'd long recognized that most pop music was constructed from individual elements or groups of elements (in those track-starved days) up until then, it usually sounded like the ideal was to recreate something vaguely like an actual sonic event, a concert, a jam, etc... But I remeber listening to the production on some of the early Al Green records and thinking, Man, they're not even trying to make this all sound like it fits together. The kick is dry and in your face and the snare sounds like it's way in the back of the room... none of this fits together... and yet, damn, it sounds really cool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bruce Swedien Posted December 17, 2006 Author Members Share Posted December 17, 2006 Originally posted by blue2blue Makes a lot of sense to me. I remember in the late 60's and early 70's when I really started noting what I called a "surrealistic" approach to mixing. While I'd long recognized that most pop music was constructed from individual elements or groups of elements (in those track-starved days) up until then, it usually sounded like the ideal was to recreate something vaguely like an actual sonic event, a concert, a jam, etc... But I remeber listening to the production on some of the early Al Green records and thinking, Man, they're not even trying to make this all sound like it fits together. The kick is dry and in your face and the snare sounds like it's way in the back of the room... none of this fits together... and yet, damn, it sounds really cool! Bluey..... Absolutely! In the very early days of stereo I remember someone(An engineer) at Universal commenting on the fact that the bass should always be only on the right! That same person said to me that he could not imagine a drum set that was as big as the entire stage.... He also had a very short and singularily unnoticed career! Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted December 17, 2006 Members Share Posted December 17, 2006 Originally posted by Bruce Swedien Stereo Recording... Does this make sense to you? Of course, makes complet sense. Just as the poor ones who like to make a natural and authentic recording have the problem to decide at which place in the room the natural hearing applies, but no microphone system sounds there. Or analogous to that there are no microphones for grand piano nor special spoons for pea soup. But I guess you didn't ask me, or did you? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bruce Swedien Posted December 17, 2006 Author Members Share Posted December 17, 2006 Originally posted by Angelo Clematide Of course, makes completly sense. Just as the poor ones who like to make a natural and authentic recording have the problem to decide at which place in the room the natural hearing applies, but no microphone system sounds there. Or analogous to that there are no microphones for grand piano nor special spoons for pea soup. But I guess you didn't ask me, or did you? . MAMBO..... Your replies are always more than welcome! BOLERO.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bruce Swedien Posted December 17, 2006 Author Members Share Posted December 17, 2006 To Continue... First, I try to think of the "Stereo Space" as a piece of musical reality. Once we have acquired that concept, we can conversely, also think of the "Stereo Space" as a piece of musical fantasy. Whether or not it could exist in nature, or in a natural acoustical environment, is irrelevant. Most of the "Stereo Spaces" in my recordings, began their life in my imagination... I always try to make my stereo sound-field far more than merely two-channel mono. In other words, I always try to make my stereo sound-field multi-dimensional, not merely left, center and right. For me to be satisfied with a sound-field, it must have the proportions of left, center, right and depth. Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted December 17, 2006 Members Share Posted December 17, 2006 Originally posted by Bruce Swedien Bluey..... Absolutely! In the very early days of stereo I remember someone(An engineer) at Universal commenting on the fact that the bass should always be only on the right! That same person said to me that he could not imagine a drum set that was as big as the entire stage.... He also had a very short and singularily unnoticed career! Bruce On the right? Because the cellos and basses are on stage-right in most orchestra setups? That's pretty hilarious. On the left-right, thing, yeah... the virtual space also goes front to back, too. About 15 years after I built my first stereo (that was around '61 or so... so, we're talking late '70s) I decided to try mono for a while. (Actually, my old Williamson tube amp decided for me and I went along for the ride 'cause I was always broke back then.) My left and right speakers -- both of them big ol' folded horns from the '50s -- didn't match anyhow, so I picked the best of the two and put it smack in front of my couch and listened to everything in mono for a few years. It was really informative. (Within a couple years, I'd start engineering but in those days I was just a weirdo avant-punk musician.) I really got a feel for depth of field in audio that, I think, served me pretty well. Back to the surrealism thing, for a sec, though... I have to say that I'm a bit of a luddite when it comes to listening to classical recordings. I hate the modern tendancy to over-mic and then fiddle around trying to compensate for phase and timing issues that result from spot miking an orchestra spread out over a physically large area. A lot of modern orchestral recordings just don't "hang together" for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bruce Swedien Posted December 17, 2006 Author Members Share Posted December 17, 2006 Originally posted by blue2blue On the left? Because the cellos and basses are on stage-right in most orchestra setups? That's pretty hilarious.On the left-right, thing, yeah... the virtual space also goes front to back, too. About 15 years after I built my first stereo (that was around '61 or so... so, we're talking late '70s) I decided to try mono for a while. (Actually, my old Williamson tube amp decided for me and I went along for the ride 'cause I was always broke back then.) My left and right speakers -- both of them big ol' folded horns from the '50s -- didn't match anyhow, so I picked the best of the two and put it smack in front of my couch and listened to everything in mono for a few years.It was really informative. (Within a couple years, I'd start engineering but in those days I was just a weirdo avant-punk musician.) I really got a feel for depth of field in audio that, I think, served me pretty well.Back to the surrealism thing, for a sec, though...I have to say that I'm a bit of a luddite when it comes to listening to classical recordings. I hate the modern tendancy to over-mic and then fiddle around trying to compensate for phase and timing issues that result from spot miking an orchestra spread out over a physically large spread. A lot of modern orchestral recordings just don't "hang together" for me. bluey..... I love to hear from you!!! You inspire me! No.... Here's what I said... - someone(An engineer) at Universal commenting on the fact that the bass should always be only on the right! I was a vrey lucky guy in that in 1957 I worked for RCA Victor Red Seal recording the Chicago Symphony. As a result I DO know what a proper orchestra sounds like!!! In 1957, Bea and I were living in the Chicago suberb of Wheeling, just after having moved from Minneapolis. It was almost a year before I was to go to work for my mentor, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Sayers Posted December 17, 2006 Members Share Posted December 17, 2006 I remember back in 1970 when I was working at a studio in Melbourne. We had the eight track version of the MM1000 which was a reconfigured video recorder transport. We used to record the backing tracks for In Melbourne Tonight - a very popular TV variety show. It was brass, saxes, rhythm section and strings all recorded together in our large studio. I was mixing a track that was predominantly strings and because of track constraints they were recorded in mono on one track. This is pre digital delay. The studio was part of a major television station and we had tie lines up to Master Control. They had tie lines to their sister station in Sydney. So I called master control and asked them to patch me up to Sydney and for Sydney to loop the signal straight back to me. The resultant delay was enough to create a stereo spread of the strings and I started into the world of using millisecond delay to achieve a new kind of stereo effect. cheers john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted December 18, 2006 Members Share Posted December 18, 2006 Most of what I'm listening to is Prestige Jazz from the late 60's, early 70's...so I'm really enjoying the purist approach these days. Enough to want to try some live to two track stuff with a local band, school jazz band, or something like that. But, I do love the "sonic fantasy". I think that is where the "art" of engineering really ventures into more creative territory. The advent of multi-tracking/overdubbing is probably when the lines between engineer and producer started to blur. Once you get past purist stereo recording is when the engineer starts making creative decisions. I like both. I wonder if it's still possible to achieve the level of "space" and/or "air" or maybe "ambience" that you get from the type of recording you are refering to. I've listened to a whole bunch of different types of jams and you don't get the same kind of spacial information that you get from a "stereo" recording. No matter how much you try in a multi-tracked and overdubbed album, I just don't think you are going to be able to create the level of spacial detail you get from a true stereo recording. I guess it doesn't really matter. If you happen to be Terry Date recording a Prong album, you're not really worrying about some dude bitching about how the audio information doesn't sound like a real space. -~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff Leites Posted December 18, 2006 Members Share Posted December 18, 2006 In the mid 60's I made my first "stereo" by replacing the tone arm on my childhood record player with a $2 plastic stereo tone arm and cartridge from Lafyette Electronics. I used the record player's build in amp for one channel, and my guitar amp for the other channel (diagonally across the room). I'd sit in between them, listening to all kinds of cool effects from the early stereo recordings, like the music coming from one channel, and the singer from another. It was totally wrong, but I really liked it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rasputin1963 Posted December 18, 2006 Members Share Posted December 18, 2006 Absolutely, Bruce. To my way of thinking, 1966 was the year which really dispensed with the sonic spatial realism aesthetic of stereo... I'm thinking of, say, the Beatles' REVOLVER. Even from the album's opening moments ["Taxman"] they were telling you that they were doing something in-your-face different with stereo and reverb. I think the single "For What It's Worth" by Buffalo Springfield, from that year, has a dramatically different stereo sound from any other American record that came before it. They're definitely taking some stereo liberties on that record, for artistic effect. It seems to presage the 1970's, to me. And then, in 1967, with SGT. PEPPER'S, Emerick and Martin ushered in that "stereo collage" technique, whereby the different "choirs" in the stereo field were to be applied in kind of a flat 2D mock-up, the way a graphic artist will slide around pictures and newspaper clippings in a 2D paper collage (not unlike the layers metaphor in Adobe PHOTOSHOP!) I suppose it was avant-gardists like Karlheinz Stockhausen [ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bruce Swedien Posted December 18, 2006 Author Members Share Posted December 18, 2006 Originally posted by rasputin1963 Absolutely, Bruce. To my way of thinking, 1966 was the year which really dispensed with the sonic spatial realism aesthetic of stereo... I'm thinking of, say, the Beatles' REVOLVER. Even from the album's opening moments ["Taxman"] they were telling you that they were doing something in-your-face different with stereo and reverb. I think the single "For What It's Worth" by Buffalo Springfield, from that year, has a dramatically different stereo sound from any other American record that came before it. They're definitely taking some stereo liberties on that record, for artistic effect. It seems to presage the 1970's, to me. And then, in 1967, with SGT. PEPPER'S, Emerick and Martin ushered in that "stereo collage" technique, whereby the different "choirs" in the stereo field were to be applied in kind of a flat 2D mock-up, the way a graphic artist will slide around pictures and newspaper clippings in a 2D paper collage (not unlike the layers metaphor in Adobe PHOTOSHOP!) I suppose it was avant-gardists like Karlheinz Stockhausen [ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted December 18, 2006 Members Share Posted December 18, 2006 I learned everything I know from these guys. Great to enjoy your contributions to the forum, Sir! -~ -Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GY Posted December 18, 2006 Members Share Posted December 18, 2006 1959. One of my all time favorite recordings is "Time Out" by the Dave Brubeck Quartet. Fred Plaut did an amazing job with these fabulous performances. A fine example of a nice old stereo record (IMO). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Extreme Mixing Posted December 18, 2006 Members Share Posted December 18, 2006 I think of the stereo space created by two speakers as my own fantasy/reality playground. I try never to worry about what could really happen, only what I want to have happen, and how I could achieve the sound. When I can hear it in my head, I can usually find a way to make it come out of the speakers. My stereo benchmark comes, not from live performances I have heard, but from records that I have heard and loved over the years. Sometimes, I remember them as being cooler than they really were, but that's OK. It just sets the mark a little higher. Mostly, I remember the feeling that I got from the music, and not the exact delay, or the amount of feedback that was on it. I really want people to feel the music, and not worry about some technical aspect of the production. When i came into this business, reverb was already coming mostly out of boxes, not real halls or rooms. I use delays as musical devices to propell the song, or to add parts that were never there before. I love it when a delay becomes part of the way you remember the song. Sometimes it can seem like it was always there. It feels like it was always part of the arrangement. I try to never do tricks that will make me feel foolish in a few years. I like my mixes to be wide and deep. I want to hear every detail, but also to perceive it as a whole unit that would not be complete with out everything in. I find that as time goes by, I have become less subtle about panning. If I want something panned left, I pan it all the way left, not 80%. It seems the more time I spend as an engineer, the less EQ I use. One of my fondest memories was when I asked Bruce his take on equalization. I can still hear his baritone voice, with a nice clear peak at about 4.5k say, "Steve, there are two types of equalization: corrective and creative. I use them both." Simple but true. I try to know my objective before I engage the EQ, and I use as little as possible to get the sound I am hearing. I believe that great mixes happen on the faders, and that if you have to EQ things too hard, you probably don't have a very good balance. A great example of this concept is Bruce's Basie mix. Take a look at the documentation on the tape box! +2db at 10k here and there, but basically nothing going on. The magic is in the balance, and the mic placement. Magic is when something cool happens, and nobody quite knows why. I think on some level, Bruce doesn't even know why. That's just what happens when he does what he feels is right, and he has learned to trust himself. That's what I try to do as well. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bruce Swedien Posted December 18, 2006 Author Members Share Posted December 18, 2006 Originally posted by Extreme Mixing I think of the stereo space created by two speakers as my own fantasy/reality playground. I try never to worry about what could really happen, only what I want to have happen, and how I could achieve the sound. The magic is in the balance, and the mic placement. Magic is when something cool happens, and nobody quite knows why. I think on some level, Bruce doesn't even know why. That's just what happens when he does what he feels is right, and he has learned to trust himself. That's what I try to do as well. Steve Steve.... Right you are! And I don't necessarily WANT to know why. I think if it makes you feel good, it is good!!! Mostly... It does save a lot of time if you know what you doing. I AM a control freak! I firmly believe in the following. Ability is what you're capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it. Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Extreme Mixing Posted December 19, 2006 Members Share Posted December 19, 2006 Originally posted by Bruce Swedien Steve.... Right you are! And I don't necessarily WANT to know why. I think if it makes you feel good, it is good!!! Mostly... It does save a lot of time if you know what you doing. I AM a control freak! I firmly believe in the following. Ability is what you're capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it. Bruce Swedien I didn't mean to give the impression that I don't know what, or why I do the things that I do. I pretty much know what's going to happen when I choose a certain mic, or compressor, reverb or whatever. What I don't know is why the things I choose to do come to me in the first place. They seem to be so natural; the obvious thing to do. The truth is that no one else on the planet would choose to do it exactly the same way. That goes for you, me and everyone else on the board. That's the mystery of life, I suppose... A mix is a series of several thousand small decisions, each building on the last. You stop when you don't hear anything else that needs attention. Live mixes are a stream of conciousness. Ride the vocal, feel what he's going to do, here comes that horn part, maybe a little more verb would be nice. Lots of things to do in a finite period of time. I actually love to work that way, too. Music is, at it's core a real time adventure. Too bad it's not for so many of us in the industry. I guess we have Geoff Emerick, and the Beatles to thank for that. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TimmyP Posted December 19, 2006 Members Share Posted December 19, 2006 Some of those late 50's RCA shaded dog LPs were among the few classical recordings I could listen to when I was in the hi-fi business in the 80s and 90s (along with the world's fastest rendition of Beethoven's 5th, that was recorded in mono in either '46 or '49, and re-cut by Linn in the 90's). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rasputin1963 Posted December 19, 2006 Members Share Posted December 19, 2006 Bruce and guests.... I am wondering if any of you have experimented with that 3D sound... not Surround Sound at all, but the use of various plugins and softwares to have the signal appear to come from anywhere in the 360 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted December 19, 2006 Members Share Posted December 19, 2006 Originally posted by Jeff Leites In the mid 60's I made my first "stereo" by replacing the tone arm on my childhood record player with a $2 plastic stereo tone arm and cartridge from Lafyette Electronics. I used the record player's build in amp for one channel, and my guitar amp for the other channel (diagonally across the room). I'd sit in between them, listening to all kinds of cool effects from the early stereo recordings, like the music coming from one channel, and the singer from another. It was totally wrong, but I really liked it. That's scarily similar to my first rig. My tone arm was about $1.79 from Lafayette's archrivals Allied Radio (and to think it was Radio Shack that beat them all) and I mounted it on what was left of a beat up old 50's $12 "hi fi" I bought at the Goodwill As-Is yard for 50 cents. Eventually I saved up for a Gerrard changer. Looking back on it, the Goodwill As-Is turntable was probably a better machine. But did I learn? No... I just started saving for Gerrard's high end 'automatic transcription turntable' (changer)... the Lab 80 ... sigh what a POS that was... but it DID have a "low mass" afromosia wood tonearm. And little lights. Anyhow. _______________________ Bruce Great stories from you, always. That's the diff between you and me. I tell long stories about nothing whatsoever and expect people to find some sort of meaning in them. You tell long stories that are actually ABOUT really interesting times and really interesting people... They're two very different talents. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members alfonso Posted December 19, 2006 Members Share Posted December 19, 2006 Probably the evolution of stereo from the naturalistic approach of rebuilding a real space to a "creative" approach of building an ideal space came along with the different musical objects related to the available recording spaces and techniques. It seems obvious to me that the production of a great orchestral recording in a famous and praised theater will be presented to the public as a faithful rendition of the live experience (a bit too much marketing anyway i.m.o., but unavoidable) but a certain amount of "creativity" will be necessary anyway to bring the great auditorium in your living room...This "creativity" is inside the naturalistic approach anyway, it rebuilds the illusion of nature (a real environment) But in the same moment in wich music is recorded in more neutral spaces, recording booths or. at the opposite, in casual and untechnical stages and, with electronic instruments through wires, at that point there isn't any natural environment to reproduce, you can build it from scratch, and this became a part of the musical language itself, with the incredible evolution of thinking to a musical part as a function of a space picture. We could attempt an hazardous but stimulating conclusion: the naturalistic approach produces fakes, the sonically visionary approach produces the truth, beacause it won't trick anybody. It's like the "more real than real" aerographed picture vs. the fast and desperate V. Van Gogh's wheat field...were is the truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bruce Swedien Posted December 19, 2006 Author Members Share Posted December 19, 2006 Originally posted by blue2blue That's scarily similar to my first rig. My tone arm was about $1.79 from Lafayette's archrivals Allied Radio (and to think it was Radio Shack that beat them all) and I mounted it on what was left of a beat up old 50's $12 "hi fi" I bought at the Goodwill As-Is yard for 50 cents. Eventually I saved up for a Gerrard changer. Looking back on it, the Goodwill As-Is turntable was probably a better machine. But did I learn? No... I just started saving for Gerrard's high end 'automatic transcription turntable' (changer)... the Lab 80 ... sigh what a POS that was... but it DID have a "low mass" afromosia wood tonearm. And little lights. Anyhow. _______________________ Bruce Great stories from you, always. That's the diff between you and me. I tell long stories about nothing whatsoever and expect people to find some sort of meaning in them. You tell long stories that are actually ABOUT really interesting times and really interesting people... They're two very different talents. :D Bluey..... I find your stories very interesting. I love your posts... Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted December 19, 2006 Members Share Posted December 19, 2006 Originally posted by Bruce Swedien Bluey..... I find your stories very interesting. I love your posts... Bruce Swedien Yeah, I love his posts, too. I tend to skip a lot of threads that just don't compell me to click them, but if I see he's posted in a thread, I give it a read. He has that perfect balance of useful info/humor/commentary and general recollections of various personal experiences and travels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Iamtheblues Posted December 19, 2006 Members Share Posted December 19, 2006 Absolutely right Bruce! I couldn't agree more with what you say!!! That was a great post! You are spot on with that observation!! I was thinking the exact same thing!! I can't believe you actually post here! It was the highlight of my day, in fact I'm printing it right now, because when you speak, we all listen!!! We're not worthyWe're not worthyWe're not worthy..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.