Jump to content

Conversations with Jim Anderson


mikeweil
 Share

Recommended Posts

So here is the thread that became a victim of the BNBB resizing, please continue here!

mikeweil

Member

Member # 1606

posted February 09, 2003 10:50 AM

Dear Jim Anderson, as the audio engineers thread that you contributed so much to is obviously gone, I take liberties to suggest this new thread. Of course, every audio engineer is invited to take some time and post a few remarks. But it was so great to change ideas with and get info from someone like you that I think we must continue this in some way or another. To put your name in the topic's title is my way to say thank you to you for sharing some of your insights with us board members ....

For starters: Yesterday I put on Henry Butler's second Impulse album, The Village, recorded in 1987 by some Jim Anderson. I was always curious how the overdubs were made in one track, Expressions of Quietitude, where Butler used Jack deJohnette's Korg synthesizers set to guitar sound, with some piano fills and solo overdubbed. But the synth sounds different in the left and right hand playing. Now do you perhaps remember the order in which this was recorded after all these years?

As always, thanks for your reply.

Posts: 594 | From: Germany | Registered: Mar 2001 | IP: Logged

jim anderson

Member

Member # 2634

posted February 09, 2003 03:25 PM

Mike, Thanks for the invitiation. I'm honored to be "in conversation" with y'all. It's always been my pleasure to respond to comments from members of the BNBB. On other bulletin boards, many times, you're stamping out fires, instead of having civil conversation. In the studio, there's a bit of a vacuum from reality: the listeners, the ultimate consumers (and I mean that in a good way) of what we do. I'll talk to some of my audio friends and I'll encourage them to contribute to this thread in the future.

I have to thank Mike for bringing up the Henry Butler "The Village" session (1987). I haven't had a chance to hear it in years. I've been enjoying Henry's recent work and saw him when he played New York's Jazz Standard, a few months ago.

This was my first session for Impulse! and you can't imagine how happy/excited, etc. to get the call from Ricky Schultz. It was one of the first times that I had a real budget for the recording. It was my first all digital recording. The Sony 3324-24 track digital recorder-was $1000/day to rent (1987 dollars!). This was bleeding edge technology, at the time. The studio was A&R's R-2 on West 48th Street, one of my all time favorites. A moderately small studio with 2 very well designed booths, concrete floor (still my favorite for a studio, rather than wood), flourescent light and acoustic tile-like an old time new york studio. The console was a 32 channel Neve 8068 with the dreaded Necam One automation. Some great classic stuff came out of there long before I stepped into the place: Billy Joel (Just the Way You Are), Phoebe Snow (Poetry Man). The studio sessions for Paul Simon's movie One Trick Pony was shot in there, rent it and get a sense of the studio and the control room.

In the left isolation booth is Jack DeJohnette, in the right Ron Carter. Both are facing the control room. Henry on piano to my left and the horns are to his left, slightly across the room and turned back to see Jack and Ron. All of the instruments were tracked live, with a couple exceptions. Expressions of Quietitude being one of them (you probably never thought I'd get around to talking about this, did you Mike, but look what you started). The tracking on that was Bass, Drums and Korg, with the all of the acoustic piano overdubbed. The Korg had some PrimeTime delay/chorus effect to give the sense of stereo from the different hands. (This is really primitive, compared to what we can do these days.) If you're interested: the recording of Ron has no microphone, it's all Barcus Berry pickup and the piano was using the B&K 4007's on the house Yamaha C7. Henry's vocal on the later track was a live track with a Beyer M500 Ribbon microphone. It was one of the last times that I used Yamaha NS 10's for monitoring (although in my listening, today, it didn't sound all that disapointing). It was the first time that I got to work with Bob Ludwig for mastering. As I've said, I learn more by going to the mastering session than by anything else. I can see what they have to do to make a recording get across and then when I go back to the studio, I can incorporate what they've done into my next recording; leaving them to do less, the next time. That probably makes a short story long, but I'm happy to fill you in.

Did I tell you that the piano tuner couldn't be found because he was in the hospital and had his appendix removed and Henry ate a whole mound of wasabi by accident? I guess there's more to tell about that session. JA

[ February 09, 2003: Message edited by: jim anderson ]

Posts: 147 | From: brooklyn, new york | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

mikeweil

Member

Member # 1606

posted February 10, 2003 03:00 PM

Jim, this is georgeous .... your memory is about to outdo your engineering skills ...

that about answers my question and goes way beyond!

It would be great if you could talk some of your colleagues into participating here!

Regarding the Henry Butler session, I always disliked the Barcus Berry sound. I have an audiophile recording from a French label that recorded Ron Carter without a pickup using B & K microphones in an artificial head, a duo with pianist Michel Sardaby, and he sounds totally different from what we are used to. Much warmer. More "wood".

And I'm afraid I don't know what wasabi is. These stories are great to read, please: more of this!

Posts: 594 | From: Germany | Registered: Mar 2001 | IP: Logged

fc

Member

Member # 267

posted February 10, 2003 07:07 PM

japanese horseradish, popular with sushi

Posts: 313 | From: montreal, canada | Registered: Mar 99 | IP: Logged

mikeweil

Member

Member # 1606

posted February 11, 2003 04:54 PM

Now how many fire extinguishers were there in the studio ....? before and after?

Posts: 594 | From: Germany | Registered: Mar 2001 | IP: Logged

mikeweil

Member

Member # 1606

posted February 11, 2003 04:57 PM

To get back to audio business: It's almost impossible not to stumble over some Jim Anderson engineered disc each day. Today it was John Hart's "Trust" for Blue Note. Nice sound. Now how did you record Mike Formanek's bass on this one? And did you ever record Ron Carter without the pickup, and what was the difference to your ears?

Posts: 594 | From: Germany | Registered: Mar 2001 | IP: Logged

jim anderson

Member

Member # 2634

posted February 14, 2003 11:14 PM

Ron has a very specific thing he's trying to show with the pick-up, and his sound in general. The bass (any bass) speaks slowly and the pickup works at the speed of light (or the speed of electricity). He wants to show where the time is and the pick-up is much more responsive in that respect.

Now, here we have two opposed things we're trying to record: a beautiful, but slowly blooming sound, and a pointed direct pulsing sound. All of these pick-ups, like the basses that they're attached to, have a specific sound, too. Schetler, Underwood, Barcus- berry, Gage, etc. All have a characteristic sound and the engineer has to be careful how that's captured and then used in the mix (if it's to be used at all).

Many of the reasons producers, musicians, listeners don't like the 'dreaded bass direct'(now there's a phrase that I think is downright silly and I'll say no more) is because of some basic mistakes that engineers have made. Some direct boxes load the pickup, thereby changing the frequency response; making it thinner (you know the sound). Or have not corrected for the polarity of the pick-up versus the microphone; causing a cancellation, or nulling, of the low frequencies; making it thinner, etc. Now with the correct direct box, the proper polarity, and the proper amount in the mix, the 'dreaded'- ness will go away.

Mike's sound was captured with a couple of microphones that I like, and use, a lot. Sanken is a Japanese microphone company that makes microphones that I respond to. I used 2 CU-41's and my favorite AMB Tube buffered DI box. I've used this combination on many of my recordings: "Cafe Blue" and "Modern Cool", a couple of recordings that have been noticed for their bottom end.

The Henry Butler recording, for me, is an unusual recording as far as the bass is concerned because it has no microphone on it, only the di. I wouldn't do it that way, these days. but that was the style (or a style), back then. Now, Ron and I get an acoustic sound that we like and then blend in the amount of direct that seems correct.

There's another thing that I've noticed and should mention here: like many instruments, the bass is a complicated acoustic with notes appearing all over the place. Some notes will appear on the left of the instrument and likewise some on the right and then some only come out the direct. If you have a chance to listen and watch the meters, you'll see them appear all over the place and I feel that if you don't take in the direct, there may be a component in the players' sound that's missing.

We've just finished a recording with Ron's trio: Ron, Russell Malone and Mulgrew Miller. It'll be out in Japan, first on Somethin' Else, and eventually out in the states on BN. As always, the latest project is always the favorite and this is no exception. Although "When Skies are Grey" and "Stardust" are pretty good sounding recordings, as well as the "Classic Jazz Quartet" cds.

By the way, Mike Formanek is teaching at Peabody Conservatory, in addition to his recording.

A good question, hope this helps.

Posts: 147 | From: brooklyn, new york | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

Gerry

Member

Member # 1718

posted February 17, 2003 10:38 AM

Thank, Jim, for your eloquent and informative reply. All too often, it seems, we listeners want to dictate the methods used in the production of the albums we purchase without understanding what, or how many, factors play in to the decisions made regarding those methods. Most of the best-centered and most golden-eared audiophiles I know are old- timers who hark back to the days of building their own gear (if only from kit form) and schlepping their own Revox/Ampex/whatever to record a their own, or their friends', chamber music/jazz combo/etc. I've become convinced that they hear more, yet (assuming reasonable proficiency is displayed) they seem to comment less.

Posts: 85 | From: Frederick, MD | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

mikeweil

Member

Member # 1606

posted February 18, 2003 04:50 AM

I think there's some truth in what you say, Gerry, but I know as well that your listening tastes have very much to do with your (past and actual) feelings, memories - nostalgia plays an important part in what sound you like, I am convinced. And the sound you get at home depends as much on the playback equipment you have. It all gets very intricate. The way an instrument sounds live or on a CD depends on so many factors, basically I had to learn, and this was not easy for me as a musicician, that a good live sound and a good CD sound are totally different things with different aesthetics involved. And these veterans you mention have their aesthetics shaped by their listening experiences, which are sure a lot different from ours.

Jim mentioned - in the deleted thread - some of his learning experiences. And these commentaries are of invaluable help in the never ending search for good sound. Thanks again, Jim!

I should have named this thread "Questions for Jim Anderson", there'll be some more of these for sure.

I'll get that new Ron Carter disc with Mulgrew Miller and Russell Malone as soon as it's available, as these are all players I like - very interesting about his idea of getting that rhythmic attack with the help of a pick up. Similar to how guitarists use amps or singers use microphones. I get the idea ... There was a German musicologist writing his dissertation on the swing concept in jazz and the slighty ahead timing many musicians use to generate swing. One of the onjects of his research was a McCoy Tyner Trio recording (Trident on Milestone) which had some bars of unaccompanied bass that he analyzed, finding the attack was slightly ahead of the metronomic beat. Now I wonder what his conclusions would have been if Ron had not used his pickup that day ...

Posts: 594 | From: Germany | Registered: Mar 2001 | IP: Logged

jim anderson

Member

Member # 2634

posted February 18, 2003 07:20 AM

There's a lot to talk about, here.

All of us started as an amateur of one sort or another and we've all gone thru our minimalist phase, too. In fact, Revox was the home version of Studer. (I remember recording at the 2nd Jazz and Heritage Festival in New Orleans and everyone who thought they knew anything about recording came by asked us how we liked our Revox tape machines. They were Studer B67's!)

As you go along, you adapt the techniques that you need to get the sound you're going for (it's a given that you'll have the tools as your disposal) and keep the good basic technique that either you read about or learned by listening (and I can't stress that strongly enough). Sometimes we throw out the baby and the bathwater, in search for a new sound. That's the danger.

There's so much going on in a session and many times it's out of the control of the engineer. There have been times that the thing that the artist wanted, either in the sound of their instrument, or in the arrangement and was eventually criticised by a reviewer was the very thing that the artist or producer wanted to do! Some of the recording techniques we use: booths, headphones, multitrack, even pro-tools are the very things we need to acomplish the date because of schedule; difficulty of the music- for the musicians or the engineer, and a million other reasons (or excuses).

The trick (or the talent) of the engineer is to create an aural impression that none of this trickery (chicanery) took place! Vincent Canby of the New York Times called it the "plausables". It's the same in any art, movies, books, etc.: if it seems plausable, the audience will 'buy' it and it won't distract from the final impression. It should enhance it and propell it forward.

At the end of it all, the recording made with 2 microphones, should be able to stand up next to the one with 48. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the technology used to make a recording, to paraphrase James Carville: "It's the music, dummy."

Some of my favorite recordings were by Robert C. Fine of the Eastman Wind Ensemble with 2 or 3 microphones. Put the microphones in the right place (and this is a given that the group you're working with has a perfect balance as the Eastman did). The rule here is: the simpler the recording technique, the better the group has to be (and the room, too), if you're expecting a great sound.

Also, the more experienced musicians tend to be less 'in the face' of the engineer and the producer. It's hard to divorce the experience of playing an instrument to listening to a playback. I remember Phil Woods making a comment after a first take: "The headphones aren't perfect, but let's go and hear what the paying public is hearing." A good, if not great attitude in the studio. We were working 2 track (the whole band direct to stereo) and he could make the mental jump from a so-so headphone mix to a good recording. If only everyone were so forgiving.

Posts: 147 | From: brooklyn, new york | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

jim anderson

Member

Member # 2634

posted February 18, 2003 07:20 AM

There's a lot to talk about, here.

All of us started as an amateur of one sort or another and we've all gone thru our minimalist phase, too. In fact, Revox was the home version of Studer. (I remember recording at the 2nd Jazz and Heritage Festival in New Orleans and everyone who thought they knew anything about recording came by asked us how we liked our Revox tape machines. They were Studer B67's!)

As you go along, you adapt the techniques that you need to get the sound you're going for (it's a given that you'll have the tools as your disposal) and keep the good basic technique that either you read about or learned by listening (and I can't stress that strongly enough). Sometimes we throw out the baby and the bathwater, in search for a new sound. That's the danger.

There's so much going on in a session and many times it's out of the control of the engineer. There have been times that the thing that the artist wanted, either in the sound of their instrument, or in the arrangement and was eventually criticised by a reviewer was the very thing that the artist or producer wanted to do! Some of the recording techniques we use: booths, headphones, multitrack, even pro-tools are the very things we need to acomplish the date because of schedule; difficulty of the music- for the musicians or the engineer, and a million other reasons (or excuses).

The trick (or the talent) of the engineer is to create an aural impression that none of this trickery (chicanery) took place! Vincent Canby of the New York Times called it the "plausables". It's the same in any art, movies, books, etc.: if it seems plausable, the audience will 'buy' it and it won't distract from the final impression. It should enhance it and propell it forward.

At the end of it all, the recording made with 2 microphones, should be able to stand up next to the one with 48. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the technology used to make a recording, to paraphrase James Carville: "It's the music, dummy."

Some of my favorite recordings were by Robert C. Fine of the Eastman Wind Ensemble with 2 or 3 microphones. Put the microphones in the right place (and this is a given that the group you're working with has a perfect balance as the Eastman did). The rule here is: the simpler the recording technique, the better the group has to be (and the room, too), if you're expecting a great sound.

Also, the more experienced musicians tend to be less 'in the face' of the engineer and the producer. It's hard to divorce the experience of playing an instrument to listening to a playback. I remember Phil Woods making a comment after a first take: "The headphones aren't perfect, but let's go and hear what the paying public is hearing." A good, if not great attitude in the studio. We were working 2 track (the whole band direct to stereo) and he could make the mental jump from a so-so headphone mix to a good recording. If only everyone were so forgiving.

Posts: 147 | From: brooklyn, new york | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

jazzhound

Member

Member # 294

posted February 18, 2003 09:48 AM

Hi, Jim.I have a basic idea of what mastering engineers do to make a master tape more appealing in its final form in the pop world, but what did you find them doing to your recordings, particularly before you got more experience?

Posts: 635 | From: merrick, new york, usa | Registered: Sep 99 | IP: Logged

michel devos

Member

Member # 2523

posted February 18, 2003 09:57 AM

[

[ February 18, 2003: Message edited by: michel devos ]

Posts: 11 | From: brussels | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

michel devos

Member

Member # 2523

posted February 18, 2003 10:16 AM

Originally posted by jim anderson:

[QB]There's a lot to talk about, here.

All of us started as an amateur of one sort or another and we've all gone thru our minimalist phase, too. In fact, Revox was the home version of Studer. (I remember recording at the 2nd Jazz and Heritage Festival in New Orleans and everyone who thought they knew anything about recording came by asked us how we liked our Revox tape machines. They were Studer B67's!)

Hello Jim,

Indeed, your post reminds me exactly of my first 'pro'recording session in a jazz club in Brussels back in 1973...Milt Buckner was playing his Hammond organ , expertly assisted on drums by Jo Jones.I used exactly the same B67 Studer 2 tracks stereo with a couple of Shure SM76 dynamic omni mikes.When listening nowadays to these tapes, one notices of course the lack of precision in the cymbals work and absence of deep bass, but the sound stage and acoustics are rather well pictured, with a kind of "feel" or acoustical sound typical of the single couple technique...Of course, I was happy that the duo was perfectly balanced in terms of sound power, and by the fact they were playing together for so many years.Even the club acoustics were all right,talk about being lucky...

Although most of my work is now done in classical music, I still love that jazz organ combo sound and find it not really easy to capture with the excitement one experiences with this live sound...I recorded recently Rhoda Scott in a club with a much more sophisticated set up but was not entirely happy with the results, using 4 mikes on the Leslies (KM184 and U87's) and BK 4006 +KM184 for the drums).

I am not saying going to the multimiking technique destroys the ambience of the venue, but the more immediate sound clarity seems more difficult to shape in a coherent soundstage, not to mention the trouble to get the post processing right (reverb and EQ etc..)

Do you have any remembrance of your sessions with Jimmy Smith and John Patton that you would like to share with us..?

Thank you in advance for your input.

[ February 18, 2003: Message edited by: michel devos ]

Posts: 11 | From: brussels | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

jim anderson

Member

Member # 2634

posted February 18, 2003 10:24 AM

The mastering engineer in any musical genre does the same thing. They are the last stop in the recording process. With their experience, they put the recording at hand into context. I hope that makes sense to you. I like to think of it as the final 'spit and polish' that gets applied to the recording.

Now some recordings don't need it, but I must say that they are the exception.

In the simplist of examples, when recording or mixing, one rarely knows where a tune is going to fall in a given sequence. The tune before it may have a huge ending (volume) and the start of the next tune is very quiet. These may require a little bit of rebalancing. These days, in addition to mastering, the mastering engineer is called upon to do a fair amount of editing.

There's nothing worse than a project mastered by the wrong person. They must be simpatico with the music. Someone who specializes in heavy metal mastering usually doesn't do the appropriate job on the philharmonic, interesting as the result may be.

One big band recording that I did was mastered without my attendance. There was this wonderful A section of the tune played tripple pianissimo and then the whole band played a single note stinger at triple forte. It had punch and a great surprize (sort of like the Mozart Surprize symphony). Now, when the release cd came out, all of the dynamics had been wiped away, leveled out. All of the fun of the arrangement had been wiped away with no sensitivity to the intention. From then on I felt it my duty to make sure that I went to the mastering sessions to protect my interests and the project. I use this in my teaching as an example of what not to do in mastering. This person also gave the sound a terrible stridency in the upper frequencies. Now, who do you think takes the brunt of the comments in the press? I have yet to see a writer think that it might be a good recording in need of a better mastering job.

As in the words of the medical institution: "Mastering engineer, do no harm."

Posts: 147 | From: brooklyn, new york | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

jim anderson

Member

Member # 2634

posted February 18, 2003 10:46 AM

In my opinion, multimiking doesn't destroy the ambience of a venue, but gives a different ambience to one.

In a live recording, engineer David Baker always has a stereo microphone, of some sort, nailing down the sound stage and then using the spot microphones to fill in the detail that the mains hasn't picked up.

I on the other hand go for the detail and make it up on the console. This probably comes from my broadcastin background. Too much ambient source doesn't carry well in broadcasting. If you listen to Patricia Barber's live album "Companion" that will give you the idea. That was 32 track/microphones to capture the quintet. I used 2 4006's to capture the house. Also, in those situations, the house pa and monitors are usually too loud to be of any help in the recording, so I usually don't bother.

The Jimmy Smith dates, "Damn!" and "Angel Eyes" were tracked at the same time. Jimmy had requested 2 Leslies, although I only miked one. I tend to put 2 omnis (4007's) at 180º to each other and a nice condenser on the bottom (Sanken CU-41) and sometimes take in a direct input (just like RVG) off the instrument.

Those were also Arthur Taylor's last sessions. A lot of the magic is in his tracks. Everyone was tracked live with the exception of a couple of fixes here and there.

The John Patton sessions were recorded across the hall in a tiny room at Avatar and direct to 2 track (Jimmy Smith was 48 track Digital) in one day. The approach on the organ was the same, but we were going for a much different group sound. When Bob Belden heard the project, he said it sounded like a modern version of a classic Blue Note date and encouraged BN to release it in the US. No takers, though. I thought he was right on.

[ February 18, 2003: Message edited by: jim anderson ]

Posts: 147 | From: brooklyn, new york | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

Soul Stream

Member

Member # 2815

posted February 18, 2003 11:09 AM

Jim. Those two Patton dates are superbly recorded. Angel Eyes, Damn, This One's For JA, and Minor Swing I consider the best sounding "recent" organ albums period! I had no idea you had engineered all four. You really did a great job on those. Plus, John Patton was a good friend of mine so I'm especially pleased you recorded those two. He's amazing on those.

Could you tell us more specifics about those Patton sessions? I'd love hear them. Direct to 2 track? Great organ sound!!! And it does stack up with the old Blue Note sessions, and I don't say that lightly.

--------------------

John Patton Lives

Posts: 797 | From: | Registered: Mar 2002 | IP: Logged

jazzhound

Member

Member # 294

posted February 18, 2003 01:10 PM

Do you notice cds sounding more and more compressed, Jim? I assume this is being done in the mastering room.

Is it better to make sure the master isn't too dynamic rather than leave it to mastering engineer? I had a tendency not to use enough compression. The final product always sounded squashed in comparison to the master, especially the TV stuff, so I think maybe its better when tracking to use as much compression as you can stand, if you know what I mean. (One time I had to redo a cue on a home studio setup with synths, on a TEAC board that squashed everything. Guess which cue sounded best on TV! )

Where do you teach?

Posts: 635 | From: merrick, new york, usa | Registered: Sep 99 | IP: Logged

jim anderson

Member

Member # 2634

posted February 19, 2003 06:05 AM

Thanks for the kind words about the John Patton and Jimmy Smith sessions.

If you'd like a look at the room where we recorded the John Patton sessions, here's a link: http://www.avatarstudios.net/rooms/studio_b.html

Look at the map and imagine the drummer and the percussionist are in the back; the large rectangular isolation area (separation area, actually), the organ Leslie was tucked away in the lower lefthand booth, the guitar amp was in the hallway leading out to the control room (a typical thing to do-just make sure to hang a sign on the outer door leading to the studio) and John on organ, Dave on sax, and Ed on guitar are in a tight circle in the main room. There's just barely room to turn around. What's the old saying? You'd have to go out into the hallway to change your mind (just don't trip over the guitar amp). That's the set-up for 'This One's for JA' as well as 'Minor Swing'.

The organ was approached the way I discribed above(Avatar is an unusual studio, in that it has more than one very good sounding Hammond Organ-B3 in house.). The sax and guitar were recorded with Sanken CU-41's, my favorites. Although, on 'Minor Swing' Zorn was recorded with a Coles 4038 ribbon microphone. It smooths out the nasty edge that his alto can have.

In the control room, my pal and producer, Kazunori Sugiyama, is occasionally listening on a pair of Sony CD900 headphones. I'm monitoring on my old reliable pair of Meyer HD-1's. The 900's and the Meyers compliment each other well. We do this because on a 2 track recording and something sneaks in there during a take, Kaz can direct my attention to it quickly.

The good thing about putting everyone in such a small room and starting them up, they can rehearse, warm up, trade stories, without headphones or any other part of the recording process getting in the way and I can work on real-world sounds (rather than the 'can I hear the kick?' "thud...thud...thud...") and have the whole band sound up in a matter of minutes.

These recordings were direct to dat. We were among the first to use outboard digital converters in dat recordings. At that time, we were using a Pigmy analogue to digital converter and I believe it was what set our recordings apart from the crowd. We were also careful about the cable we used; making sure to use AES digital cable that could pass the bandwidth the digital signal required (many were using microphone cable, then).

These guys came to play. In typical fashion, the sessions started at 11am and we were packing up by 4 or 5pm.

I hope you're copy is the lp like mini-gatefold version. They're classics inside and out.

Posts: 147 | From: brooklyn, new york | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

jim anderson

Member

Member # 2634

posted February 19, 2003 06:21 AM

Compression, like reverb, is something that after it's added can't be taken away. You're better off tayloring the sound as much as you want to before the next person gets their hands on it. I work with mastering engineers that know the sound I'm going for and if they recommend a little tightening up of the sound, I'll usually go for it. As I said, if I've done too much in the way of compression (I'll never apply comression across the 2 mix bus, but on selected instruments), I've tied the hands of the mastering engineer. You need to give them enough of everything to work with: frequency response, dynamics, etc. I'll try to get it in the mix, first and if somethings not sitting in the pocket, or sticking out of the pocket, then I'll apply a little judicious limiting to the offender.

Too much compression can be fatiguing. If you've ever had a chance to look at the waveform of "La Vida Loca" on a computer, it's a band of white, without relief, or release. It's an example of compression used for an effect.

Many times too much compression can take the power out of a signal, by stripping away the peaks that give it the punch and power.

I feel where many people get into trouble, these days, is with the 'normalizing' feature on pro-tools. In fact, call me an old fogey, but to this listener, the reason a lot of music sounds the same, these days, is everyone's using the same plug-ins (reverbs, compressors, etc) and a lot of the hands-on creativity of the studio can disappear.

Now we've got a couple of different issues, here, and I'd like to open the forum for discussion.

Posts: 147 | From: brooklyn, new york | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

YertleTheTurtle

Member

Member # 2844

posted February 19, 2003 06:57 AM

Jim,

Thank you very much for these posts. My previous knowledge of capturing live music was using a tape recorder to record the pathetic high school rock band in which I played. I have learned SO much from your posts and definitely gained a new appreciation for all the work that goes into preserving music so it appears that 'no work was done at all!' Thanks again!

David

Posts: 682 | From: Charlottesville, VA | Registered: Mar 2002 | IP: Logged

jim anderson

Member

Member # 2634

posted February 19, 2003 07:23 AM

The pleasure is all mine.

I'd rather hear a good recording of a bad band than a bad recording.

Posts: 147 | From: brooklyn, new york | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

mikeweil

Member

Member # 1606

posted February 19, 2003 03:27 PM

quote:

Originally posted by jim anderson:

I'd rather hear a good recording of a bad band than a bad recording.

Posts: 594 | From: Germany | Registered: Mar 2001 | IP: Logged

jim anderson

Member

Member # 2634

posted February 20, 2003 02:51 AM

Jazz Hound, as a VP of the AES, I've given master classes in mixing and spoken on jazz recording at McGill University, the Banff Centre, Berklee, William Patterson University, The New School in NYC, NYU, UdK-Universität der Künste, Berlin, Suny Fredonia and AES sections.

If I can put in a plug here, I hope our European friends will make an effort to come to the AES Convention in Amsterdam in March. http://www.aes.org/events/114/

[ February 20, 2003: Message edited by: jim anderson ]

Posts: 147 | From: brooklyn, new york | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

Gerry

Member

Member # 1718

posted February 21, 2003 11:39 AM

My post wasn't intended to address issues of reproduction chain performance, personal preference, or the nostalgic aesthetics of a group of (fairly) old men. I merely attempted to draw a comparison between the propensity for questioning an engineer's methods exhibited by boardmembers here (and throughout the audiophile community at large), who are largely pure listeners; and the comparitive reluctance to do so by a few I know who have actually recorded music on their own and, as a result, have a more realistic understanding of the process. Implicit, perhaps, in my argument is an encouragement to the pure listener to get out of the living room from time to time and record the kids' school band or the church choir. Surprisingly capable recording gear can be had for less than one might think and working one's way through the difficulties encountered in getting anything useful on tape can be an eye-opening experience. That is not to say that anyone should lower their standards or accept marginal work simply because "the engineer tried really hard," nor do I wish to insinuate that anyone should be quiet because they don't know what they're talking about, but experiencing what it takes to meet the standards to which we've all become accustomed can often be educational. Some of your records are probably more impressive than you realize.

[ February 21, 2003: Message edited by: Gerry ]

Posts: 85 | From: Frederick, MD | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

jazzhound

Member

Member # 294

posted February 21, 2003 02:25 PM

Actually a recording engineer's job is considerably easier when working with top notch musicians than with the semi pros the novice engineer starts out recording.

When the top musicians are present, consumers should expect great sounds, cause frankly, it ain't that tough to get a great sound on a musician who has his sound together.

Of course, capturing a great performance is quite another story; when people gush over the early Blue Notes recorded in Rudy Van Gelders living room, they are digging great performances by musicians who had such great tone and control of their sound, it would be hard to make a bad recording with them.

The modern studio environment can get in the way of a musician giving his best, and again the pros excel in compensating for the rather artificial environment the studio presents.

A good engineer does many subtle things to facilitate good performance, including careful preperation.

So when venturing out into the recording world, looking at things from the other side of the mic can help make recordings that people respond to, even if the are no sonic marvels.

Posts: 635 | From: merrick, new york, usa | Registered: Sep 99 | IP: Logged

jim anderson

Member

Member # 2634

posted February 21, 2003 04:41 PM

I couldn't have said it any better. It is hard to make a great recording when the musicianship isn't there. In fact, it's downright impossible.

But I also want to challenge you and go and listen to some of those classic recordings and listen to the engineering. Some of it's amazing and some of it you don't even pay attention to the engineering because the music's so compelling.

The standards of recordings are so much higher, today, in all aspects. How many of the classic recordings can you think of where you just wish the record company had payed to have the piano tuned?! These days you can hear the sublties of the overtone structure and when a unison goes out of tune: OUCH!

Getting back to basics: my big job last week was going out with two microphones and recording the choirs in the chapel at my son's school. Granted I'm using a matched pair of Brauner VM-1 tube microphones, but the high-end stuff stops there. The recording was direct to my Tascam DAP-1 dat machine.

I always do this for the school, because, for me, it's good practice, and, for them, they get a pretty good recording.

I remember being a public school musician and it was always hit or miss on whether the recording of the high school or the honors band would be listenable. But it always was a kick (and many times humbling) to put the lp on the turntable and listen to our band.

Posts: 147 | From: brooklyn, new york | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

jazzhound

Member

Member # 294

posted February 24, 2003 05:29 PM

Could you harken back to 1995 Jim and recall Ahmad Jamal's THE ESSENCE Part I?

The piano sound Alain Francais got on the tracks recorded at Studio Marcadet in Paris is just great. It has some real weight to it, which I have never heard to such extent on my almost high end stereo system.

Any knowledge of how he got it, or how I could contact him to find out?

You guys did a great job!

Posts: 635 | From: merrick, new york, usa | Registered: Sep 99 | IP: Logged

jazzhound

Member

Member # 294

posted February 26, 2003 09:50 AM

In reference to James Farber live recording technique, I just heard Joe Lovano's Quartets cd James recorded at the Village Vangard in 1995. If he did use a stereo mike for the room in addition to the close miking, it works wonders. (I particularly dig the 2nd disc with mulgrew Miller who sounds great.)

I also recall liking Redman's live recording at the same venue, recording by Farber. The recording captures the excitement and atmosphere to the max.

These recordings set the standard. Amazing realism and dynamics. Check them out!

Posts: 635 | From: merrick, new york, usa | Registered: Sep 99 | IP: Logged

jim anderson

Member

Member # 2634

posted February 26, 2003 04:19 PM

James probably used an AKG C-24 to set the staging on the Redman and I would think on the other recording, too. I'll ask him to contribute to this thread about this.

And I'll get back to you on the Ahmad recording, soon.

[ February 26, 2003: Message edited by: jim anderson ]

Posts: 147 | From: brooklyn, new york | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

jim anderson

Member

Member # 2634

posted February 27, 2003 04:13 AM

Jazzhound, James Farber had this comment:

It was David Baker, not me, who recorded Joe Lavono at the Village Vanguard.

But the stereo mic for the Redman recording was the Schoeps stereo microphone from Effanel Recording. JAF

Posts: 147 | From: brooklyn, new york | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

Duke Pearson

Member

Member # 1697

posted February 28, 2003 01:51 AM

Thanks for your contributions here, Jim! They have been immensly interesting and informative! I would like to take the opportunity to ask you, as someone who is in the business, about general trends in how recordings are made to sound.

When listening to well-engineered and -produced albums from the 50s and 60s, it may (within the limitations of the equipment used) sound as a very accurate reproduction of the performance. Then the 70s came around, and even recordings of purely acoustical instruments began to sound completely different. I don't mean to say that all recordings do, but a great deal of them does sound a bit boxy, dry and compressed to my ears (sorry, but I'm in lack of better terminology to describe it, but I hope you get what I mean). Then in the mid 80s gradually most recordings returned to a more "transparent" feel.

What was the reason for this change in the 70s? It seems that the pre- and post 70s/ 80s recordings share some characteristics. I usually find the 70s/80s less enjoyable at length, but I suspect that wasn't the case back then; everyone probably did what they think was best. So was the definition of what was a "true" reproduction of acoustical instruments different? Can it even be expected to change again in some 10 years? Or wasn't even a faithful reproduction of the instruments the main goal?

Posts: 853 | From: Stockholm, Sweden | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

Newbie1

Member

Member # 1637

posted February 28, 2003 05:28 AM

I recently picked up the Misha Mengelberg's "Who's Bridge" recording that I came across that was previously owned. I bit out of the main stream of what I have been listening to and it may take a few listens for me to get through a few of the cuts. I did like what I heard for the most part and another good one regarding the sound quality!

Posts: 235 | From: Piscataway,NJ USA | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

B3-er

Member

Member # 407

posted February 28, 2003 10:18 PM

I heartily reccommend using a direct lineout of the Hammond preamp for recording organ. We used one on my trio's recording and just used it to boost the bass. The Leslie sound is still there, but the direct box added bass that the Leslie just doesn't reproduce.

One thing to watch for is that the direct box has to be properly designed. You can't connect a grounded source to the Hammond preamp because the whole organ isn't grounded. You have to have a ground lift in the direct box or else it will hum like mad.

--------------------

Keep it greazy,

*B3-er* www.organissimo.org

Posts: 732 | From: E. Lansing, MI USA | Registered: Sep 1999 | IP: Logged

jim anderson

Member

Member # 2634

posted March 01, 2003 07:45 AM

And, needless to say, with the use of any direct box blended with an acoustic signal: check the polarity!!

Posts: 147 | From: brooklyn, new york | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

B3-er

Member

Member # 407

posted March 01, 2003 10:24 AM

Good point, Jim. The box I have was specifically designed for a Hammond and has a ground lift, polarity switch, and a couple different pads. Works great!

I swear, on the Larry Young recordings, RVG used more direct signal than Leslie signal. Larry's organ just sounds so... static!

--------------------

Keep it greazy,

*B3-er* www.organissimo.org

Posts: 732 | From: E. Lansing, MI USA | Registered: Sep 1999 | IP: Logged

Soul Stream

Member

Member # 2815

posted March 01, 2003 10:33 AM

B3-er, is that direct box you have something that can be ordered or purchased online? Or is it a custom item you had built? Thanks.

--------------------

John Patton Lives

Posts: 797 | From: | Registered: Mar 2002 | IP: Logged

B3-er

Member

Member # 407

posted March 01, 2003 12:05 PM

It was custom build and unfortunately the transformer it was built around doesn't exist anymore. But...

The guy that built it is working on a new model using Jensen transformers that should sound even better.

He also built the syncrotor mechanism that I have in my Leslie. I gives you a "stop" speed on the Leslie and not only that but the rotors stop at the same spot every time. Great for studio miking.

--------------------

Keep it greazy,

*B3-er* www.organissimo.org

Posts: 732 | From: E. Lansing, MI USA | Registered: Sep 1999 | IP: Logged

Soul Stream

Member

Member # 2815

posted March 01, 2003 12:25 PM

That's great. Hopefully, he can market both of those items. How he gets the rotor and horn to stop at the same spot every time is phenomenal. I'm curious as to how that could be done. Must be nice to have such a great organ repair tech. My advice is don't come South, they DON'T exist. My rig is a joke and not from a lack of trying either. Repairmen that can't do a dang thing right... I'll be damned if my stuff doesn't break down in some way 2 songs into the first set every gig. It's really a drag. If you don't have a decent repairman, you shouln't even bother it seems.

My advice for organ players is this. Get a gig for $50. Spend 75$ on repairing your equipment beforehand. Have something break on the first set to make yourself miserable all night. Then spend another $60 getting that fixed for a net loss of $85 every gig! Horn players rule.

--------------------

John Patton Lives

Posts: 797 | From: | Registered: Mar 2002 | IP: Logged

B3-er

Member

Member # 407

posted March 01, 2003 12:35 PM

Soulstream,

What exactly is the problem? Maybe I can help. One definately almost needs a degree in electronic troubleshooting and repair to play Hammond! They don't break down often if well-maintained, but if they do, you need to know how it works so you can hopefully repair it and do the gig!

The syncrotor is actually pretty simple. You place a small permanent magnet on the horn and a sensor underneath. Every time that magnet passes over the sensor, the "brain" of the unit knows where the horn is. All the brain does it cut voltage to the motor at a specific time and due to the forces of gravity and friction, the rotor will slow down and stop at relatively the same spot. Within an inch. The bass rotor is a little harder to get right because it's so heavy, but there are controls on the brain to adjust when and where it stops.

--------------------

Keep it greazy,

*B3-er* www.organissimo.org

Posts: 732 | From: E. Lansing, MI USA | Registered: Sep 1999 | IP: Logged

Soul Stream

Member

Member # 2815

posted March 01, 2003 01:37 PM

Hey B3-er sent you a private message as not to sidetrack this thread too much....

--------------------

John Patton Lives

Posts: 797 | From: | Registered: Mar 2002 | IP: Logged

jim anderson

Member

Member # 2634

posted March 02, 2003 01:38 PM

Duke, You bring up some interesting ideas. My suggestion is to: "follow the music...follow the technology...follow the music industry...follow the musical trends...studio design...etc.", all of these are linked and don't exist in a vacuum.

Think about what changed from the 50's-60's and the 70's on: vacuum tubes changing to transistors in all aspects of the recording and playback chain. Many times we thow out the baby and the bath water, without much respect to either or the consequences.

Now, in the studio, we have a change from analogue tape to digial tape to hard disc recording. Bits and bobs of the old technology get incorporated in the new techniques.

What will happen in the future? You tell me.

Now in the 70's, I was just getting started and spent a lot of time listening to music. If I think of recordings that impressed me at the time and, now that I think back to them, imprinted their 'sound' in my ear. Many of the ECM recordings, Keith Jarrett "Köln Concert" and "Facing You", Chick Corea's "Return to Forever", "Light as a Feather"(granted that's on Polydor), and "Piano Improvisations Vols 1+2". I was lucky enough to have bought the European pressings of those recordings and I still have them.

At the time, I felt the European labels were much more into quality, rather than commerce. Probably coming from their classical roots and lack of a commercial attitude toward the music industry. I felt they had a handle on 'transperancy'. I have to confess that I'm hard pressed to come up with domestic recordings from the same period that affect me the same way.

With luck, we make recordings that, when viewed with the value of hindsight, we don't cringe, when hearing them with the ears of the present, and have to look away.

[ March 02, 2003: Message edited by: jim anderson ]

Posts: 147 | From: brooklyn, new york | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

hockman

Member

Member # 281

posted March 03, 2003 12:24 AM

Dear Jim:

We are extremely grateful for your posts here, and do please keep it up.

One quick question. What recording and monitoring equipment do you use/like? What do you think of FM Acoustics, for example?

Thanks, Hock

Posts: 175 | From: rockville, tennessee | Registered: May 99 | IP: Logged

jim anderson

Member

Member # 2634

posted March 03, 2003 05:00 AM

Hock, thanks for the encouragement. I like the fact that this discussion goes beyond 'how' things are done and into 'why', many times.

For monitoring in the studio, I use a trusty pair of Meyer HD-1 monitors. I like them because they help me find the problems in a mix. They don't flatter the mix, as some monitors will. I also like the results when I take the mixes home. A monitor with a certain bump in the high or low fequencies will cause you to mix, eq, add reverb, etc. differently.

When you have to work on a pair of speakers that you're not familiar with, that's when you have to go into what I call the zen state of listening. There you listen thru the monitors and not to the monitors. You listen to balance the mix and not what it sounds like. (I do carry a set of Black Diamond Racing cones for the HD-1's-seems to tighten the bass and stabliize the imaging)

I'm not familiar with the FM Acoustics equipment, other than seeing their catalogs.

Anyone experienced?

Posts: 147 | From: brooklyn, new york | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

Duke Pearson

Member

Member # 1697

posted March 03, 2003 09:34 AM

This time, I've saved this thread in time, at least.

Thanks again for your posts, Jim. If this forum disappears completely, perhaps we'll see you at harlem.org?

[ March 03, 2003: Message edited by: Duke Pearson ]

Posts: 853 | From: Stockholm, Sweden | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

michel devos

Member

Member # 2523

posted March 03, 2003 01:57 PM

quote:

Originally posted by B3-er:

I heartily reccommend using a direct lineout of the Hammond preamp for recording organ. We used one on my trio's recording and just used it to boost the bass. The Leslie sound is still there, but the direct box added bass that the Leslie just doesn't reproduce.

One thing to watch for is that the direct box has to be properly designed. You can't connect a grounded source to the Hammond preamp because the whole organ isn't grounded. You have to have a ground lift in the direct box or else it will hum like mad.

I have been trying for quite a time now to capture a really good B3 bass sound from the Leslie's....Seems many of you, including Jim, recommend a direct output from the B3.My questions are :

-Where do you get the B3 line output, or does one use a black box to split the signal to the Leslie?If so, is such a device easily available?

-When doing so, are we not losing the Leslie's Doppler effect, or would you still mix some live output with the black box signal...If yes, any experience regarding the relative levels...?

Many thanks for your help, folks...

Posts: 11 | From: brussels | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

jazzhound

Member

Member # 294

posted March 03, 2003 02:10 PM

thanks for the info, Jim. Is there another board where engineers and others interested in the art converse? I fear the end is near for this one.

Posts: 635 | From: merrick, new york, usa | Registered: Sep 99 | IP: Logged

[ March 03, 2003: Message edited by: kartoffel·hadi blues ]

Posts: 1128 | From: bothell, wa | Registered: Jul 2000 | IP: Logged

Soul Stream

Member

Member # 2815

posted March 03, 2003 06:09 PM

Thanks for saving this thread. I'd hate to think Jim Anderson and many others have spent so much time and effort in sharing...

--------------------

John Patton Lives

Posts: 818 | From: | Registered: Mar 2002 | IP: Logged

jim anderson

Member

Member # 2634

posted March 04, 2003 06:44 AM

Hi all. If interest is still there, let's continue over here. Thanks for saving this and let's get back to work.

JA

ps let this be a lesson, always hit 'save'

[ March 04, 2003: Message edited by: jim anderson ]

Posts: 153 | From: brooklyn, new york | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

mikeweil

Member

Member # 1606

posted March 05, 2003 02:37 AM

quote:

Originally posted by jim anderson:

ps let this be a lesson, always hit 'save'

I am relieved to see this here! Anybody saved the other thread with Jim? Oh jeeeez .... I feel like the people of Iraq picking up the pieces after Bush`s bombs!

Posts: 605 | From: Germany | Registered: Mar 2001 | IP: Logged

mikeweil

Member

Member # 1606

posted March 08, 2003 04:38 PM

Thanks again for saving this, Kartoffel hadi Blues (what the h*** ispired you to take this name?!?), but since I decided to move my activities, I take a copy over to

http://www.organissimo.org/forums

and kindly ask anybody to continue the discussion over there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 372
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

jazzhound, microphones are a personal choice, a personal tool and each engineer uses them in their own way. any studio worth anything has the usual compliment of neumanns, sennheisers, beyers, shures, akg, rca etc. the better the studio, the better the mike locker. one should never have to ask: do you have a u-87, a km-84, a u-47 (tube or fet), a u-49, a dx-77, a 44 (in fact, they should have at least 2 of everything-one of something never helped anyone), etc.

i have an extensive mike collection of my own and it's all the kind of equipment that a studio would never pop for: Brauner VM-1`s, DPA 4006's, 4007's, Sanken CU-41's and CMS-2's, Coles 4038 ribbons, Neumann USM-69 etc.

i got tired of going to a studio and finding out that the high profile client (eric or pat, for example the kind of client that you only have to use one name) in the next studio had booked all of the good stuff (or found out that they might advertise that they had a certain esoteric microphone only to find out that it hadn't been working in years)

as far as changing techniques from analogue to digital, i never thought that way, to me a recording that would work in dig would work in analogue-i would have tried to match the project to the format

i still like 2" 16track no noise-now there's a fat sound (or is that phat?)

so, core microphones, and some of these are going to seem obvious: SM-57, SM-58, U-87, MD-421, MD-441, RE-20, U-47, Fet-47. DX-77, 414, C-12, C-24, KM-84, (i can never remember the numbers of the new neumann line: 149's, 184's etc) and 3 M-50's if a studio can find them!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

b3-er, I can say that I've only seen them and haven't heard them. I've been told from friends that they've managed to get close to the classic rca sound. Fortunately, the studios that I work in have many of the original 77's and 44's in excellent condition. the one thing that I have discovered over the years, is that those mics sound best in bi-directional pattern, rather that cardiod; they open up and sound much warmer with both sides open (duh!). I'm always amazed when I go to use them and have to get out a screwdriver and give the old metal plate a turn. the one recent ribbon that I've not been impressed with is the Royer. I find myself favoring the Coles, when given a choice. For me, it's another one of those cases where if all you heard was the former, then it would be acceptable, but when they're put side by side, there's no comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, I recently got me a copy of the Pink Panther (1963) to admire Al Schmitt's sound, but the liner says Jim Malloy! Did I confuse albums? And could you elaborate on what you dislike about the CD transfer? I bought the CD to at least have it until I manage to locate an LP copy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, I'm sure that by the time the Pink Panther came along, Al was on to other things. He recorded Peter Gunn (though I haven't heard a good transfer of that-I still prefer my vinyl copy), Experiment in Terror, Hatari!, Days of Wine and Roses, and Bachelor in Paradise for Mancini. (Al may have also recorded Mr. Lucky and Breakfast at Tiffany's, too).

There is an excellent XRCD transfer of both Breakfast and Charade by Akira Taguchi I can recommend the 3 cd set "Henry Mancini-The Days of Wine and Roses", too. It has good documentation of all the sessions.

I believe Jim Malloy started his Mancini collaboration with "Charade" (not bad, eh?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jim -

Never asked you a question prior to this, but I've enjoyed reading your responses on the Blue Note board in the past.

I just picked up David S. Ware's "Surrendered" this weekend, and lo-and-behold, there's your name inside the package (again - I've been noticing your name on more and more of my cds lately). Any interesting recollections from this session?

What music do you actually enjoy listening to, when you're not working? I'm gonna take a stab and say it's not jazz at all (?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by jim anderson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by jim anderson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was happily surprised to see Jim Anderson had followed this thread from the BNBB.

I'd like to see something from Ron McMaster or RVG (I know, only in my jazz dreams). ;)

There has been much discussion on these boards (well, the BNBB boards), some intelligent and some not, about the nuances of McMaster and RVG. Speaking for myself, I've developed quite a respect for the work of McMaster of late.

Edited by wesbed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought punching only went on at Miles's sessions :wacko:

So is it the exception when the horn players don't punch in parts of their solos? ( which I assume they attempt when the rhythm section lays down the basic tracks.)

that would mean you have to totally isolate the horns from the rhythm section. :huh:

I know it varies from session to session, but I would surprised to hear that they lay down their solos like vocalists track!

Miles probably was the first to do this. On the Gil Evans sessions I believe he would lay out in some sections, with the idea over overdubbing his solos later.

This thread is great. Thanks Jim Anderson for coming on over!

Now if we could only lure that James Farber guy over here....

Edited by jazzhound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all! Hi Jim!

As my name suggests, I am a student aspiring (and perspiring) to be a recording engineer. Jim spoke at our school, Penn State, at an AES meeting, and what an insightful lecture and Q&A it was. Thanks again, Jim!

I have been discussing with Jim and other engineers, etc about recommending equipment to purchase for our student organization, Recording Engineering Collaboration (REC). The university has funded us for equipment just recently, and we are about a week away from making decisions on which gear we want and buying it. If any of you have any advice for us, I am currently collecting...

The biggest question mark for us right now is monitor choice. Jim recommended the Genelec's 1031, but they are a bit out of our budget (Sweetwater has them listed at ~$3000/pair). We can probably only spend $1500 max for a pair. Any recommendations?

Also, we are considering a MAC G4 (Dual 1 GHz processor, 1 GB RAM, 120 GB HD). These specs can be modified, but only by upgrading one spec AND downgrading one spec, ie, we can upgrade the processor to 1.25 GHz by downgrading to 512 MB RAM.

We will probably get Digi 002 (Pro Tools, 32 Tracks, 18 I/O's). Any thoughts on any of this? All advice is great advice.

Thanks in advance...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Young Buck,

I would spend the money on the monitors. Personally, I think microphones, mic preamps, and monitors are the most important tools a studio has. Your recordings are only as good as your mics and mic pre's and your mixes can only be as good as your monitors.

Why spend all that money getting a top of the line G4? Why not get a G4 800Mhz machine or even a 733Mhz with a whole lot of RAM? Both of those machines would have plenty of power to run a full Pro Tools rig, much less the O2. Get one used and load it up with RAM.

For inexpensive mics, I recommend the MXL series. Also known as Marshall. They are really great sounding microphones and unbelievably inexpensive. The studio where we recorded our record has two of every mic Jim listed earlier in this thread. Coles, Neuman, AKG C-24s, etc. But he uses the MXL 2001 on almost every project because it has such a great sound. For the money, it can't be beat. The little MXL 603 mic that comes with it are great as well.

For the price, the Genelecs are probably your best bet, too. Although I've always found their sound to be a little harsh with digital equipment. But I'm not a professional engineer, just a hobbyist. :)

For more info on the Marshall mics, check out the MXL webpage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by jim anderson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...