Re: studio recordings


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by B.G. on December 08, 2002 at 06:10:55:

In Reply to: studio recordings posted by De on December 07, 2002 at 21:00:09:

There's no easy answer to this, as even studio recordings vary tremendously. Since the mid 80's, there's been something of a move back towards more simplistic miking techniques. However, even that's too simplistic and deceptive. In general, most of what you hear comes over the main microphones. However, in most instances, a number of accents mikes are also employed, but usually very discretely. What's different now, as opposed to the 70's, is that digital time delays can be placed on those accent mikes, so that what comes through them is perfectly syncronized with what's coming through the more distant main mikes. This masks the fact that accent mikes may have been employed, and makes it very difficult for the listener to detect in most instances.

Another big factor is digital editing in the post recording process. It's often times extremely difficult to tell now, when a recording has been spliced together from a series of takes. Many small boo-boo's can be fixed digitally as well. This has created a happy coincidence in that studio quality recordings can now be made from just a series of live concerts. That cuts down on the necessity of studio time that's separate from the live concerts. Because of these latest innovations, the San Francisco Symphony, for example, is now able to record its own Mahler cycle, and issue it under its own brand name. That cuts out the record label all together, as no major record label can afford to start yet another Mahler cycle with one of the very expensive American orchestras. They can never recoup their costs, in other words.

I hope this answers some of your questions. In general, it's easier to detect multi-miking techniques in recordings from the 70's and early 80's (Karajan, as you mentioned).

Barry Guerrero


Follow Ups: