jim anderson

One thing I did, last spring, was to place my 15 year old Steinway B at Avatar Studios in NYC, available for recording. I've never been happier.

Kevin, my question would be: is it a high "wooooo" or a low "woooo"? Now, I'm not familiar with the Ornette recording you're referring to, but if it's a low sound, I've had the experience that you can end up micing an area on the high hat where, if they're not damped, can ring almost forever. It's around 200hz or so and it's hard figuring out where it's coming from. It also means you're too close, or you've managed to put the mic exactly in the wrong spot (also, a small piece of tape on a cymbal can take care of this unwanted ring). Interestingly, Jack DeJohnette's large cymbals have a fundamental around 125 hz (or so) and tends to keep everything nice and crisp. Buck, I've used the Focusrite and have liked them very much. The one thing that I'd recommend, since you're on a tight budget, is to get the manufacturers to give you a 30 trial, with all money back to see how you like their gear; Speakers included. I have yet to have anyone turn me down with that request. You'll be much happier in the long run. The one thing with the all in one package is the convenience with clocking. That does help to solve a miriad of problems

And furthering that thought, I've always felt the more 'smart money' that you throw into equipment, the better the ultimate result. (smart definitely doesn't = expensive)

Back on Page 3 Larsrec wrote:

I sit corrected. Millenia and John La Grou are very much around. Here's a link to his site: http://www.mil-media.com/docs/products/

I believe a 1604 is a Mackie 16input 4 bus mixer and he was probably doing the mix live to 2. Headroom and gain structure is the key to everything.

This is from a conversation that friend, and engineer, David Baker and I have had (many times throughout the years). I thought I'd like to share it with you. David writes: "As you know I think it's in the interest of all of us (engineers) to be forthright about how we work. It does not bother me to share anything I might have learned along the way. (Unlike RVG) The bigger question of how the music is served by our packaging techniques is the issue. <At the AES Convention> I've presented engineers of varying styles from the Greene brothers, Swedien, Schmidt, Massenburg, Kramer, and many so many others, in their presentations: THEY ALL HAVE SOMETHING OF VALUE TO COMMUNICATE! In the end, if the product is musical and in any way satisfying, then we have done our job. With the proliferation of so many formats and the plethora of available equipment choices sometimes a lack of familiarity with the tools plagues the equipment buying public. Gear is sold or traded often before the owner/operator has exhausted the potential of the given products. It's been said many times over and I'll agree, if it's number one with a bullet, no cares what the vocal chain was... (save for a small group of fledgling engineers.) The old Brownie/Nikon analogy holds true and can be updated: Give an 11 Mega pixel digital camera to an amateur and a 3 Mega pixel to a pro. The professional will give you better picture. Having said this, I'd rather have better equipment in use at all recording events. So much of the jazz scene is just too low budget and it's difficult to maintain the integrity of one's sonic footprint with sub-par gear. Larsrec is right about the early Presonus units being superior in sound quality with the Jensen's etc....As you know, garbage in, garbage out... So then I've gotten rave audiophile reviews on live stuff that was done on all Mackie and vise versa, music that just wasn't happening that was recorded with 'high end ' preamps has fallen by the way side. Such is the case with the Lavano live at The Vanguard. A real Dixie cup affair, with a stock old style 1604 direct to DAT. The music is great and people love it. I did not add the pre-amps to the rig until 1999. Same setup for Abdullah Ibraham Trio at Basil another Stereophile sound pick. If they only knew... One of the best sounding is in fact a recent session at The Jazz Standard. You were there on the first night and I'm sure that based on what you remember this claim seems absurd . Anyway we transferred the 24bit Presonus /Tascam material to Pro-Tools HD and mucho DSP, back down through Neve analog and Voilé!" I agree with David on this. I just finished working with a singer at Avatar and due to too many reasons, we had to do the project directly to Pro-Tools (regular and not HD). The material sounded great! It was wonderful musicians playing teriffic music and really who cares how it was done? (I made the comment to the producer that had others used pro-tools the way we were-which was with a very light hand-it might not have the bad rep that it has in some circles) I thank him for his comments and hope he'll be back here, soon. JA

I'm sorry, but you'll have to consider your hands slapped (and go wash your mouth out with soap, while you're at it, and don't speak with your mouth full, how many times have I told you?, now go to your room, wait till your father gets home). The Joe Henderson Big Band, is a recording that I'm infinitely proud of and it was a pleasure, all down the line, to work on. It was mastered by Allan ('just call me Tuck') Tucker of Foothill Digital. Allan was able to maintain the recording's wide dynamic range while not giving up the power of the band. I use the recording in my teaching, as I feel it's a good example of modern big band recording and it's also just great music, amazingly played. The recording that I alluded to will remain nameless to protect the guilty.

dear inquiring mind, interesting that you should ask. the answer is 'd' all of the above when i'm working in some studios, i've got a console full of classic neve mic pre's. now they have this wonderful round, warm, transformer sound that is teriffic, but, for me, i don't like to impose that sound on some instruments. round and warm on bass, on some players fpr example, turns to mud. on some consoles, i just don't like the mic pre's with outboard pre's i can also get a shorter signal path from the mic to the mic pre. at avatar i have lines in the wall that go from the studio directly to the wall at the back of the control room for my mic pre's. the hardys i like especially. once you get used to their metering, there's no going back and the sound is especially clean. also on ribbon mics, due to their low output, you need an extreemly clean 1st stage of amplification. also with outboard pre's you have the feeling (or can hear the sound) that the mics are getting a real 48 volts. some consoles try to skimp on that fact (older consoles, especially) also, i like to 'break up the sound' a bit and not have everything sound alike, with the same another thing you can do is mix and match the microphone with the preamp with the instrument that you're recording. to me the hardy is like a b&k (very clean) and the millenia is like a schoeps (a little creamy) and all of these flavors are like a touch of spice added to the recording. with these ingredients, you find yourself eq'ing less ps and thanks to larsrec for his comments

my mic preamps of choice are john hardy m-1, which is a 4 channel unit (he has an 8 banger on the way) and my millenia quad i've asked a couple of friends of mine who've had good luck working with other mic pres to come on board and offer their suggestions let's see what they offer

any one can correct me if i'm wrong, but as far as i know pro-tools (as i said, as of today) doesn't run on os x, but on 9.2, etc (hd may be another issue, though) this was an issue when mac was changing over to os x and may have changed and slipped by me if this is the case, please clue me in thanks ja ps buck, i think you should start a zappa thread by the way do you know of the ed palermo big band and their recordings of zappa tunes?

and as of today, os x isn't an option

I've used Meyers for 14 years, so I'll vote for them. As far as the ram vs processor speed, I'll let that conversation go to others. Any takers? Zappa's album "Roxy and Elsewhere" is a perfect example of how to integrate studio and live elements. It's one of my favorites.

in a live situation, sometimes the fault isn't with the 'levels', as you say, but with the performers who require too high a level on stage, thereby causing a multitude of problems for all of the audio types involved (recording, front of house mixer, monitor mixer) and really not caring what the problems down the road might be when that occurs in a live situation, you can listen to each and every individual microphone and all sounds fine, but when you put it together it's all mush all you can do is to lower the level on stage

rudy had 2 steinways, which he reportedly maintained himself. i believe he still has 2, but the main one is a new steinway 'd' (9' concert grand)

windows and mirrors aren't necessarily a bad thing as long as the surfaces are different and scattered around the room the keystone korner had a huge mirror at one end of the stage which never bother me one bit

quoting from 'temples of sound': it was a modern, u-shaped building with a flat roof and central airconditioning. but the elder van gelder let his son help design the living room, which made up the middle of the u-shaped house, so it could double as a recording studio. 'he let me put in a control room in there,' rudy recalls. 'there were bedrooms, a living room, a dining room, there was a kitchen, and there was a control room and the control room had a window into the living room.. yo know, a double glass..it's amazing. it still amazes me. 'we had rugs on the floor, lamps, and a television set, and little doodads in the corners. and there were hallways off the edge of it, so it gave a little more acoustic volume. so it was a fairly nice-sounding room. it had a fairly high ceiling, and it was rectangular and pretty well suited for a five-piece bebop band.' pages 194-195 'temples of sound'

That's a rare and drastic thing to do and you can hear the reason why. I worked for Creed on a couple of albums, one of which was live: "Charles Fambrough: Live at Bradley's". That was a live video shoot, too and there were no overdubs. (We were shooting that on the day the World Trade Center was bombed. Some things are hard to forget.) I can say that if Creed doesn't like something, he'll just go in there and change it. He's writing the check. Speaking of check, he still owes me for that session! (speaking of hard to forget) I'm not familiar with the session you're speaking of. Anyone?

I've never had the opportunity to try the MXL's. Though I must say that their webpage of specs look promising. The best thing that a company can do is get their product in the hands of working professionals. As they get used on session, word of mouth tends to spread among artists, engineers, assistants, and around the studio. That's what happened with me and Sanken microphones, B&K microphones and Brauner. Now they're all a part of my arsenal.

All good advice and I heartily concurr. There are some areas that you don't want to scimp on unless your prepaired to suffer the consequences. I would also like for you to consider going directly to the manufacturer (or the north american distributer) and explain your plight. They may have some b-stock (usually cabinet scratched) or convention demos that they're looking to get rid of. I didn't think the 1031's were THAT expensive! Try Meyer Sound in Berkeley, CA., too.

There's a pretty good discription in the new book "Temples of Sound" by Cogen and Clark

Don't let me give the wrong impression, and I can only speak for my sessions, but the way most of my recordings are made - all of the players are in the studio playing at the same time. Most projects don't have the time or the budget to do it otherwise (there are exceptions, but those aren't my projects). The only punching that we can do, given this set-up are small fixes in the head in or head out for the horns or a fix in the piano or bass part. Those kind of replacements are typical and necessary. You'd never be able to replace a solo completely, the isolation isn't so complete that you couldn't get a way with it. It's also difficult to get a groove on with a rhythm track coming thru a pair of headphones. The only way to put insert a different solo, in this mode, is thru editing different takes together and that's not uncommen. Actually, some of the first overdubbing that I know of comes from the Musician Union Recording Bans in the 1940's. At the end of an orchestra session they might put down a track that would be sung over later (Sinatra on Columbia, for example), trying to get it in the can before the ban took effect.

Ron, possibly. Ron mastered one of my recordings, an Andrew Hill cd for Blue Note: "But Not Farewell". I spent a very pleasant day with him in his mastering room at the tower. As for Rudy.... sweet dreams.

jazzhound, most jazz artists are unaware of the recording format until they realize that they don't like the sound and this can go both ways. Patricia Barber is very keen to the multitrack digital format that we've been using and, on the other hand, Terence Blanchard liked the analogue/dsd combination (although he was just in the studio and recording on pro-tools hd!). I just finished my first all pro-tools project and I'd bet that no one could tell that the system was used at all! The big advantage to multitrack digital is the amount of tracks and the ability to move and repair parts. On the Sony 48 track, the sonic memory function can help to repair the simplest of mistakes, after the fact. And punching can be automated. I remember another jazz engineer kicking himself for insisting that he use an analogue machine for an artist and then realized that all of the punches on the multi would then have to be by hand (and this artist did a lot of punching!)-he realized this a day or two into the project and it was too late! I do really like the sound of an analogue machine and dolby sr at 15ips. If the multitrack master isn't in that format, then many of the final masters are. I just finished a project for Ron Carter's trio where we used 2" 15ips 16 track with dolby sr. Now talk about a fat bass sound.

Aggie, Thanks for the kind words about David's cd. Although I've done many with him, that one gets mentioned quite often. It's photographer Jimmy Katz' favorite of all of them (and he didn't shoot the cover!) My favorite memory from the session was Branford (who had signed David and the band at the time) crouching down in front of the console and was in extacy. While a take was going down I heard him saying to himself:"I love this guy...I love this guy..." David is a powerful player and I've always tried to get that across in the recordings. His sound can't be held back (and shouldn't). He's one of the most powerful presences on the saxophone, today. I can only imagine what it was like to stand next to Coltrane in the studio and hear him warm up. I have that feelling when I'm standing next to David and setting the microphone for him. Speaking of Coltrane, I always think of Ernie Watts (another great) who before a session asks me for a room for him to warm up in, so he can prepair himself and not disturb others. While he's warming up, I hear him warming up on the Giant Steps solo, first in the original key and then in another and then in another. An amazing player and to think that's where he starts!! What do I listen to? That's a tough one. I listen to everything. It really depends on the mood. I've been checking out the new Stones SACD releases and a recording of Philip Meyer (principle horn of the NY Phil) playing Guther Schuller. Also in the changer is Sakamoto's 'Casa', Luciana Souza's 'Brazilian Duos'. Eydie Gorme's first album on ABC-Paramount 'Eydie Gorme', Caetano Veloso's 'Live in Bahia' and Jazznova's 'In Between'. I also listen to a German jazz/techno musician Bugge Wesseltoft and BBC radio 7 on the web. So it's a mixed bag.