"Recorded in a public hall"
- Wolfe
- Victor V
- Posts: 2755
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:52 pm
Re: "Recorded in a public hall"
I'm all for studio sound, as much as you can retain and/or bring out. Like with earlier Victors vs. ones recorded in the late 'teens early 1920's. The earlier ones were recorded more responsively and you get some sense of the room behind the players, nice. Later on (late acoustic, pre-electric) they're so dead that it's like the music is playing into a blanket, and there ain't nuttin' you can do about it. Edison DD's have that problem too, except that they also at least have the benefit of greater dynamics to balance it off (and quieter record surfaces, when at their best.)
-
- Victor II
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:37 am
Re: "Recorded in a public hall"
I'm not quite clear in what you mean.
As a rule I prefer the more 'makeable' conditions in studios over the big sound of a concert hall for small ensembles. However in some cases the natural acoustics can work a treat with bigger groups. And for a full organ you simply need a lot of space. So there are a few rules of thumb: find the place with the best treble and just a bit of natural reverb. Then you will be able to get good results even in a quite large hall. Dutch Decca proved in the 30s, recording in quite large venues, getting excellent results with just 2 mikes and a beautiful internal balance on location.
This is such a fascinating subject! A good friend of mine does a lot of recording, but believes in screening off and adding reverb afterwards. For me that's a great sin, for his studio has great natural acoustics and is well isolated.
Okay, he does a lot of live recording and may want to get rid of the 'public', but anyhow...
As a rule I prefer the more 'makeable' conditions in studios over the big sound of a concert hall for small ensembles. However in some cases the natural acoustics can work a treat with bigger groups. And for a full organ you simply need a lot of space. So there are a few rules of thumb: find the place with the best treble and just a bit of natural reverb. Then you will be able to get good results even in a quite large hall. Dutch Decca proved in the 30s, recording in quite large venues, getting excellent results with just 2 mikes and a beautiful internal balance on location.
This is such a fascinating subject! A good friend of mine does a lot of recording, but believes in screening off and adding reverb afterwards. For me that's a great sin, for his studio has great natural acoustics and is well isolated.
Okay, he does a lot of live recording and may want to get rid of the 'public', but anyhow...
- JHolmesesq
- Victor II
- Posts: 265
- Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 4:44 pm
- Personal Text: Nashville nightingale, sing a little tune for me, croon for me...
- Location: York, UK
Re: "Recorded in a public hall"
Reverb is a tricky thing. If it's natural, as in the case of the record on the 1st page then by all means it's there to be kept.
The problem is so many people try to restore records by adding so much artificial reverb, thinking "wow, this sounds like they are in a concert hall" and it just sounds fake and hollow
The problem is so many people try to restore records by adding so much artificial reverb, thinking "wow, this sounds like they are in a concert hall" and it just sounds fake and hollow
-
- Victor II
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:37 am
Re: "Recorded in a public hall"
A bit of artificial reverb to get over a rough start or an abrupt end is fine with me. Anything else is totally forbidden in my dictionary of restoration.
- Wolfe
- Victor V
- Posts: 2755
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:52 pm
Re: "Recorded in a public hall"
Me too. It's the reverb inherent on the recording that's all I can affording.