Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site olivej.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!qubix!ios!oliveb!olivej!greg From: greg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: AES Workshop Message-ID: <237@olivej.UUCP> Date: Wed, 17-Oct-84 14:05:08 EDT Article-I.D.: olivej.237 Posted: Wed Oct 17 14:05:08 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 19-Oct-84 06:17:07 EDT References: <939@houxm.UUCP> Organization: Olivetti ATC, Cupertino, Ca Lines: 62 I, for one, am grateful for Craig Dory's article. There are a few points of contention I'd like to raise. As to audiophile publications not understanding the complexities involved in classical recordings; this may or may not be the case but is irrelevant. It isn't the critic's job to support the industry but rather to report to the consumer, in as honest and straightforward a manner as he can, his perceptions of the product at hand, i.e., the finished recording. Therefore, whatever complexities and problems are involved in making the recording might be points of curiosity, but are ultimately not his concern. His job is to describe what the actual recording, in the form which is being distributed to the public, sounds like and, if he finds that sound defective, to say so. The point about audiophile publications being concerned with recorded sound quality rather than the actual music corresponds with what I've found myself. I would never select a recording for its musical content or performance quality based on a review in "Absolute Sound". Nonetheless, I find that their comments on the recorded sound match my own findings on my equipment far more often than any other publication's reviews. I would contend that the obsession with "note perfect" performances tends to be the preoccupation of recording producers rather than performers. I base this on personal acquaintance with a fairly large number of performers of various rank who have been involved in major recording projects. Almost universally, the musicians themselves are bored and annoyed with the interruptions, retakes, and intercutting that destroy the cohesiveness and continuity of their performances. For this reason, many musicians prefer it when a record company elects to record a live performance, with all of its faults. The point about multi-miking should merely reinforce what anyone who takes a serious interest in the art of recording should already know. Two or three-mike setups, given the ideal circumstances of auditorium sound characteristics and performing forces, can produce extraordinarily natural and honestly balanced recordings. These circumstances are, however, extremely rare and without the proper combination can lead to disaster. Multi-miking is a far "safer" and less time-consuming technique and allows for recordings which are at least satisfactory by performers and orchestras which don't have, within any reasonable proximity, a useable hall with the type of acoustics necessary for the simplified miking. One point that really raised my eyebrows was grouping "Cleveland" with "smaller symphonies". The quality may have dropped with Dohnanyi's assumption of leadership (I don't know that it has, but haven't heard), but last I heard it was still one of the "big 5" in the U.S., along with the Chicago Symphony, Boston Symphony, Philadelphia Orchestra, and New York Philharmonic. - Greg Paley