R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 15   Go Down

Author Topic: The advantage of large mixers?  (Read 34104 times)

Level

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1811
Re: The advantage of large mixers?
« Reply #45 on: August 24, 2004, 01:03:44 am »

1. Bling bling
2. Nice bussing.
3. Freedom from overload when pushed.
4. Can be leased, more bling bling
5. Impress your electrical co-op. They take juice to work.
6. Pretty space heater?
7. I hate to see them sit around in a warehouse.
8. You will keep the cable manufacturers in business.
9. You and your Dog can sleep under it.
and....(drumroll please....)

10. Keeps the sandman away...


PS, Rob G I thought you would (should) be annoyed with all that nasty sibilance on the Diana Krall CD's myself. She does not sound like that in person. Everything else is ok...but her voice....Uck...no one has that sound. It was uber artificial sounding. No one could ever have that sound. Nasty....SHHHHHHHsssssssssssiiiiicccccckkkkkkk

Ugly capture. Wrong mic and useage of the chain. Poor to very poor.


Uh....yes, I have heard her sing without a microphone from less than 5 feet.
Logged
http://balancedmastering.com

"Listen and Learn"
---Since 1975---

Rob G

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
Re: The advantage of large mixers?
« Reply #46 on: August 24, 2004, 01:20:13 am »

Level,

Which Diana Krall CD are you tallking about.  The one that supposedly her, & her husband wrote(The Girl In The Other Room).  If so THAT's the one I don't like.  Before that one(The Look Of Love), OK,  I DO like that one.

'Rob G.'.
Logged

bobkatz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2926
Re: The advantage of large mixers?
« Reply #47 on: August 24, 2004, 10:23:39 am »

Rob G wrote on Mon, 23 August 2004 19:26

bobkatz,

I agree.  David Banner does'nt a catch my  attention as far as sonic excellence.  In the Rap/R&B category 'Outkast' really caught my attention sonically,





I'll check out Outkast...

Quote:



track that caught my attention the most).  But if you want excellence no matter what genre then the Al Schmitt engineered 'Diana Krall' recordings absolutely take the cake.  Or if you listen to SACD check out the 'Red Rose Music' SACD's.  But, like I




I usually love Al Schmitt's work. Did he engineer all the Diana Krall's?  Because I find her CDs to sound squashed, overcompressed, particularly in the vocal, no life left to it. I can't find my example Krall CDs in my pile, so I can't tell you if these are Schmitt-engineered examples. Is it the mastering?

I have some (in my opinion) better examples of female vocal/contemporary jazz in the Honor Roll at digido.com.
Logged
There are two kinds of fools,
One says-this is old and therefore good.
The other says-this is new and therefore better."

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of
electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Paul Frindle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 380
Re: The advantage of large mixers?
« Reply #48 on: August 24, 2004, 08:41:03 pm »

Rob G wrote on Sun, 22 August 2004 15:37

bobkatz,

I absolutly 'hear' where you're coming from.  I've also had the misfortune to be in some poorly designed/maintained control rooms where the console was an issue(many years ago).  But I don't hear that so often these days(maybe it's the rooms I've been in most recently).  

I have a question though(you probably know better than I especially based upon you're knowledge of the Holman text, & such).  What system testing equipment/proceedure to your knowledge is best at detecting comb filtering effect, & other anomolies in control room monitoring, & tuning.  And what do you think of 'Bob Hodas', & his room tuning equipment, & techniques?

'Rob G.'.  


IMLE you only need to just listen to it Sad I have never heard a room that has not degraded considerably by the installation of a large mixing surface. The main problem is always the reflections from the surface (which is always just in front of you) mixing with the direct sound to cause the combing. This changes and moves around in its freq pattern as you move - most distressing.

Of course many efforts are made to reduce this, including angling of the console surface so that the reflections end up somewhere off your ears axis, or extra absorption measures around the front of the console (i.e. where many people used to put the seating for good reason). But in the end the problem still persists to some extent and gets back at you around the room acoustics eventually. Nearfield monitors help somewhat, but still suffer from different reflection combing effects.

When I was engineering I found a good method to appreciate it (or at least change it so you were aware of it) was to stand up from time to time. Also with practice the standing up - sitting down procedure would allow you to hear what part of the sound was caused by the combing - cos it changed more than the direct sound when you stood up. This could illustrate which annoying artefacts might not persist in the mix outside the studio environment - and you could possibly therefore worry less about them.

With solidly built high end consoles panel rattle was much less of an issue, but I have certainly come across installations where undamped metal panels around the place would resonate at certain freqs after loud excitations from percussion instruments - very disconcerting. And on a few occasions in Paris I actually did resort to gaffer tape and bits of foam rubber to tame them down when the annoyance level became too great. Of course (and as ever) some of the people in Paris thought I was mad, since they had apparently been working with these problems for years without noticing them at all? But then, I have been in complexes comprising of multiple high end recording/mixing facilities and mastering rooms which didn't possess a single pair of monitors in any of its rooms that didn't exhibit clearly audible faults of one kind or another - and people were apparently still working away merrily!

I have even been in a TV broadcast sound control room (in Germany) where the ferrous metal panels in the ceiling actually rattled due to the magnetic field generated in the wiring when the main studio lighting was faded up!! The field was so strong that the pictures on the TV monitors bent and distorted as well. I spent 2 weeks there trying to modify the new console to lose the hum that was being induced into all the mix busses - cos this was deemed a 'show stopper' - despite the rattling ceiling which had gone on for many years before. Oh and by the way, the mains substation that powered the whole darned premises was mounted in a basement room - right smack bang underneath the control room. People had been merrily working away in there for decades too.

Truly boggling! Sad

Logged

Rob G

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
Re: The advantage of large mixers?
« Reply #49 on: August 26, 2004, 05:24:37 pm »

bobkatz,

Quote: "..............I usually love Al Schmitt's work. Did he engineer all the Diana Krall's? Because I find her CDs to sound squashed, overcompressed, particularly in the vocal, no life left to it. I can't find my example Krall CDs in my pile, so I can't tell you if these are Schmitt-engineered examples. Is it the mastering?

I have some (in my opinion) better examples of female vocal/contemporary jazz in the Honor Roll at digido.com."

                                                                                                         -bobkatz


You think that the vocals sound messed up on Diana Krall's 'The Look Of Love' album?  Most people don't think bad of  the recordings on that album, me included.  I guess it's just personal taste.  And once again I like her 'The Look of Love' album.  The most recent one, not at all.

'Rob G.'.

P.S.: That's also the album of her's that got a 'Grammy' for best engineering.  I'm puzzled here.
Logged

Roland Storch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 406
Re: The advantage of large mixers?
« Reply #50 on: August 26, 2004, 06:43:53 pm »

A better headline for this thread could be: The disadvantages of large mixers. Confused
Logged

bobkatz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2926
Re: The advantage of large mixers?
« Reply #51 on: August 26, 2004, 11:19:35 pm »

Rob G wrote on Thu, 26 August 2004 17:24



You think that the vocals sound messed up on Diana Krall's 'The Look Of Love' album?  Most people don't think bad of  the recordings on that album, me included.  I guess it's just personal taste.  And once again I like her 'The Look of Love' album.  The most recent one, not at all.

'Rob G.'.

P.S.: That's also the album of her's that got a 'Grammy' for best engineering.  I'm puzzled here.



I was so depressed by the sound of her previous albums that I didn't pick this one up.

The "best-engineered" Grammy's usually have some merit so let's hope that at least with this particular Diana album we agree.

I'll have to pick up "The Look of Love" and give you my opinion (for what it's worth) Smile

Rob, I urge you to buy the most impressive Nancy Wilson album mentioned in my Honor Roll, engineered by the great Danny Leake and mastered by the great Trevor Sadler, for an example of what I consider an "optimally compressed vocal with wonderful dynamic range and clarity".

BK
Logged
There are two kinds of fools,
One says-this is old and therefore good.
The other says-this is new and therefore better."

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of
electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Level

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1811
Re: The advantage of large mixers?
« Reply #52 on: August 27, 2004, 03:57:00 am »

Bob, the look of love, be very afraid of the vocal capture. Very unnatural. Artificial at best. No lips can make that sibilance.

Depth and darkness does not apply here. Imagine a can and string.

Handheld 58 would rank "supreme" in comparison.
Logged
http://balancedmastering.com

"Listen and Learn"
---Since 1975---

Extreme Mixing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1050
Re: The advantage of large mixers?
« Reply #53 on: August 27, 2004, 04:19:35 am »

Isn't "The Look Of Love" the one that Al Schmidt did in Paris with no EQ  in the tracking or mixing?  I only heard it once, and it was in an unfamiliar room over a 5.1 system, but "can and string" didn't come to mind for me.  I think her lips probably really do make those noises.  Her closeness to the mic and the airy quality of her voice accetnuate the trait.  Consider this:  many people probably love the sound of that record for the exact same reason that you dislike it.

But then, that's the way music is.  It's all very subjective.

Steve Shepherd

PP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1005
Re: The advantage of large mixers?
« Reply #54 on: August 28, 2004, 04:14:02 pm »

Dear All,

Over the years I have formed, worked with, and trained many choirs, as well as being involved with solo vocalists. Because of this the numbers of singers I have been involved with actually runs into literally thousand’s in total altogether. They enjoy then, a very special place in my life experience's.

It has long been my opinion that if only we were able to reduce, or better still, eliminate completely if possible, unwanted vocal artefacts, this could facilitate an extremely positive improvement in the state of the art recording of vocalist’s as we presently know it. They are of course, so often, the very central figure in the entire recording process. And it would be a better alternative, and vastly preferable to hours of meticulous editing tiny glitches with all the associated difficulties.

There are many unwanted vocal artefacts such as lip smacking , tongue slopping, excessive internal salivation, sudden unpredictable nasal emission, as well as the more common problems of vocal plosive’s and sibilance that we are all well acquainted with.

And we should  always beware of singers that have had braces fitted as children, as this will usually create additional sibilance above the normal levels of acceptability, because of the dental modifications that have been surgically applied, which result in unnatural sound shaping to the vocal emissions, and increase the likelihood of excessive sibilance occurring.

I was relaxing yesterday, enjoying the Olympic Gymnastics of the well exercised vocal chords of Celine Dion. Mainly because someone who has helped me somewhat in the past, who I admire greatly, had produced a track for her, I naturally wanted to hear.

I should not have been surprised really, considering the power of vocal delivery involved, but you will be extremely alarmed to read, I could actually hear the good lady drawing an extremely fast, but very deep breath indeed.

I mean a breath, calculated to very quickly, but as fully as possible engorge her lungs completely with air.

It has long been my observation that if only we could break through this particularly undesirable barrier effectively, and eliminate the intrusion of this final artefact altogether, we would have the capability of producing the absolutely perfect vocal take.

Consider this absolute, an axiomatic law. Effective breath prevention measures when applied correctly ensure vocalists do not extrude unwanted vocal and nasal somatic emissions, ensuring perfect tracking of vocal presentation.

Eliminating the breathing of certain vocalists altogether seems to me to be the most important contribution a recording engineer can make to ensure a sensationally successful production, in certain particular cases.

The exuberant and character-full Celine Dion however, is not a vocalist whose stunning vocal performance I view in this way.

It is extremely common knowledge that Mr. Schmitt only uses a compressor on vocals for the tube sound, pulls only 1-2 dB from the top if he uses one at all, Limits pulling 1Db if using one, and that he received his 11th Grammy Award out of 24 personal nominations, for the very Album criticised above.

Clearly he has a lot to learn from everyone here, and I sincerely hope he will read this thread in order to further extend the depth of his understanding of the successful recording process!

In regards to the acoustical problems created by the presence of large mixing consoles, I’m disturbed to read that no-one appears to be utilising either the advantages of a ‘twin levelled’ control room floor, or a sunken console pit to accommodate the bulky mixing board.

Coupled with hydraulically operated, viscous damped, telescopic armchair seating and Penny and Giles fader extensions, the difficulties of comb filtered sound are entirely surmountable these days, and these consoles can continue thus to be used to some good effect.

It is an undeniable fact that the overwhelming majority of the very best and most successful recordings of all time, have actually been made with such consoles. This enigmatic truth is an absolutely undisputable, proven historical fact.

The problems associated with using large footprint consoles, near field monitors and ancillary studio equipment that audaciously demand an actual physical presence in the professional recording studio, control room environment, can be completely mitigated in their entirety, utilising the sunken mounted console and telescopic seating method of control room design.

Or of course, you can in fact stand on your feet temporarily when necessary to achieve the same good effect.


Best Wishes Peter


Peter Poyser
Logged

Level

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1811
Re: The advantage of large mixers?
« Reply #55 on: August 28, 2004, 05:44:05 pm »

Hi Peter!

Vocal artifacts usually do not bother me much. I ask my vocalists to perform at about a 30 degree angle across the diaphragm rather than directly into it, and a good spacing as well. The sibilance I am referring to is not a clean SSS but one that has some undue rasp in it, like clipping an A/D converter or a weak micro-phonic valve in the microphone amplifier. "Sandpapery" comes to mind, 50 grit! (actually with plenty of square wave content in analysis) Measuring the level of said sibilance being within a very few dB of the crescendos and sometimes at the level of a good swell is very annoying at best. Perhaps I have grown rather sensitive to these artifacts but never the less, having heard Krall live on stage from a few feet in a secluded setting, centered and not in the pattern of the PA especially, if her natural voice were really that sibilant, I could have heard it actually over the smaller sized PA directly from her lips. Of course this all is a matter of taste but one knows when a recording sounds "natural" or not. Perhaps the fault may not have been the actual recording at all but one from excessive transfers between the mixdown and the mastering. Perhaps the process of converting to redbook could be the culprit. It is difficult to actually tell where this was entered into the equation for said production. I have had rather fine mastering go to the press shop and come back with a "proof" that was quite different than my actual master from time to time. This does not happen often but it certainly has happened and the fault here could very well be one out of the engineers hands. No blame given. I have many very good and 2 stellar CD transports for auditioning proofs as well as folding them in the wave editor for comparison. If the CD proof does not null the master, (in the 180 degree test) the difference is certainly non acceptable. Perhaps similar to all the compression being used on the 2buss, perhaps it is a "trend" to include this level of artifactual information. I certainly would not have allowed a master to leave here with this level of "distorted sibilance" on it. It is Akin to fingernails on a dry chalkboard. One "audiophile" did not hear it at ALL..until I pointed it out. I feel more care should be given personally but I am not one with the Grammies lining my mantle so perhaps it is just an issue with me as an individual.
Logged
http://balancedmastering.com

"Listen and Learn"
---Since 1975---

Glenn Bucci

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 627
Re: The advantage of large mixers?
« Reply #56 on: September 04, 2004, 08:40:12 pm »

For a featured vocalist, do people still prefer the ribbon mic's that soften them up like on Frank Sinatra? I love some of the new Royer mic's. Personally I think a lot of Christmas CD's would sound better with ribbon mic's. Amy Grant's CD's or Natile Cole for instance.
Logged

Tim Gilles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
Re: The advantage of large mixers?
« Reply #57 on: September 05, 2004, 10:48:16 am »

Issued in bad form.

Retracted with apologies to George and all on his forum.

Tim

Glenn Bucci

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 627
Re: The advantage of large mixers?
« Reply #58 on: September 05, 2004, 02:09:44 pm »

Lets face it, most people prefer to use outboard mic pre's, EQ, and compression. That of course there are the plug ins. So the real benifit of a large console is to have the extra faders. However with a push of a button you can switch banks to work with channels 25-48 and go back to 1-24 and save yourself a ton of money with the lower cost digital mixer's. By using outboard gear, including high end converters, the benifit of the big consoles (with the exception of mixes with 60 or more tracks) really shrinks. Not to mention the SSL 900 which can control DAW's as well as give you the analog sound.
Logged

Tim Gilles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
Re: The advantage of large mixers?
« Reply #59 on: September 05, 2004, 04:00:59 pm »

Issued in bad form.

Retracted with apologies to George and all on his forum.

Tim
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 15   Go Up