how to make a state-of-the-art digital live recording
.JPG)
- the "trinity" head -
One of my greatest passions has long been and still is live recording of classical music. You cannot imagine the joy and fulfilment that wash over you, after making a beautiful recording of a concert, which is always unique and unrepeatable. Not to mention the awareness that it will stay with you forever and even ... after you!
I started in 1976 in Italy, recording almost unknown musicians, and, year after year, I recorded many of the best performers in the world of classical music (mostly Baroque), such as Ton Koopman, Gustav Leonhardt, London Baroque, Ensemble 415, I Solisti Veneti, Fiori Musicali Bremen (with David Cordier), Harry Christophers & The Sixteen, Hagen Quartet, Les Percussions de Strasbourg, Anner Bylsma, Kenneth Gilbert, Severino Gazzelloni, Jörg Demus, Nikita Magaloff, Raimondo Campisi, Bruno Canino, Pina Carmirelli, Bruce Dickey, Giardino Armonico, Choir Madrigal Marin Constantin, Marco Taio, Tölzer Knabenchor, Patrizia Kwella and ... many, many others, accumulating I don't know how many hundreds of hours of live recordings.
Here in NZ, I keep on feeding my big passion, being the official recorder for Bach Musica New Zealand (of which I had the honour of being a member of the Board of Directors for more than 10 years), Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra (Learn & Participate), Auckland Youth Orchestra, Auckland Chamber Orchestra, plus other smaller but equally talented musical ensembles.
I have also recorded many world premieres of New Zealand's contemporary orchestral classical music composers. I find their works both interesting and emotionally powerful. When performing this modern music, orchestras are often pushed to their instrumental limits, resulting in sounds with overwhelming dynamics that border on the incredible!
Since 1976, I have technically matured, always keeping in mind that the ultimate goal was to achieve something very close to the reproduction of the real event. This involves not only accurately reproducing the sound of the orchestra but also creating a virtual vision of the stage, with the precise localization of the musicians in terms of direction and distance (3D). Nowadays, I am close to achieving 90% of this reality, and I think this is a very difficult barrier to cross, if possible.
To achieve such a result, you need an "unusual" recording system and a perfect hi-fi system. This is quite intriguing because recording and playback are correlatives! Therefore, I had to proceed step by step, using the recording to improve the audio system, and the audio system to enhance both the recording system and the recording technique! It’s like trying to solve the conundrum of the chicken and the egg: which one came first? Anyway, it took me a long time to achieve the current results, but, at the end of the day, I think I have been successful!
NOTE: if you are NOT interested in the following technical explanations of the system I invented and use for live recording, but are only interested in different recording methods, the one I use, and my point of view on the baffling analogue-digital "diatribe", please jump directly towards the bottom of the page (just after the last two smaller photos), where you'll find this mark (@@@)
In 1976, as mentioned before, I started my recording "journey", using a normal 4-track Revox A77 and two dynamic Sennheiser MD 441-U microphones. My hi-fi system was composed of an AGI 511 preamp, a Michaelson & Austin TVA-1 tube amp, and a pair of Dahlquist DQ10 speakers on 40 cm high stands. These were connected to the amp by large speaker cables I made myself. I was probably the first person in Italy to understand the importance of speaker cables.
In the era of the “dinosaurs” (Klipschorn, JBL, Tannoy, Altec Lansing, Magneplanar, etc.), my system was like a “green man” from Mars! Indeed, that system, if used to play vinyl, could still compete on equal terms with many modern, exorbitantly priced “so-called” hi-end systems. It’s not for nothing that I'm used to defining today’s hi-end as “back to the 70s”!
Anyway, I still remember the first evening I made a recording (an organ concert in Lierna's church, on Lake Como) and the shock I felt when later I played it through my system! Until that moment, I was totally happy with it, but I suddenly realised there were problems. Initially, I blamed the recording, but later I realised that the fault was due 50% to the recording and 50% to the playback system. So, I began upgrading the recording system, buying two Schoeps CMC3-MK41 microphones, and a 2-track Revox A700 (big and inhumanely heavy, 25 kg). Later, in 1978, I upgraded the hi-fi system too. I added the just-arrived active subwoofer (an unknown word and concept at that time) B2-50 from audio pro, to finally have a reference in the infra-bass as well.
What I didn’t imagine back then was how much the speakers and the amp would benefit from being rolled off in the bass range, to correctly join the sub! Indeed, being relieved from trying to reproduce the infra-bass range (in vain, for the speakers) resulted in a general improvement to the system, with less distortion, increased dynamics and a better, cleaner mid-high range (I explain why this happens in the first topic of the school of hi-fi page).
To sum up, the addition was almost miraculous and the whole system was elevated to new glories!
Interestingly, after 46 years, that sub is still in my house. It remains an essential component of my main system, and considering the panorama of the "competitors" around, I have no intention of replacing it at all!
In 1980 I sold the Dahlquist and the TVA-1 and upgraded to the new audio pro A4-14, incredible active speakers, which I enjoyed until 2003. Since then, the sachem era started and now my reference system consists of a sachem pure v.2, two sachem v.3 mono-blocks, a DAC Topping D-50 III (powered by iPower X) connected to the computer, the "immortal" B2-50 subwoofer (modified) and a pair of audio pro speakers Avanti A.20 DC, connected to the amps by NORDOST 2-flat cable (1 metre long).
Please note that the Avanti A.20 DC were originally designed as centre speakers, but I have positioned them vertically on two 60 cm stands, to achieve a perfect D'Appolito configuration, which is the best solution to recreate a correct image, if present in the sound source.
My listening room is my lounge, which is big, and also open to other open spaces. This lets the sound propagate and escape, making this room acoustically "blessed"! The system, perfectly set up and tuned, proudly sports a 20↔8kHz frequency response within 4dB (not ± 4dB) at my listening point. It is flat at 20Hz, with 8kHz at -3dB, and 16kHz at -6dB, following the dictates set by "its majesty" Brüel & Kjær. The system boasts an endless dynamic range, fulminant speed and control, perfect imaging, and the lowest distortion possible nowadays in the bass-infrabass department, resulting in incredible clarity across the entire audio spectrum.
Simply put, this system competes almost equally with my electrostatic headphones, STAX SR-Lambda Pro!
If you're interested in seeing the frequency response of my system (a screenshot of the spectrum analyser), you can find it on the school of hi-fi page, towards the end of the second topic.
.JPG)
- the power supply and the three preamps on the background -
Even though I consider myself a “digital man", I have no problem admitting that, before the advent of digital, I made beautiful recordings with the Revox too, running it at 15 IPS, 2-tracks and using the very thick tape AMPEX 456. By employing this thick tape, it was possible to set the BIAS of the A700 very high, raising the saturation point by approximately 12 dB. This is the "secret" to minimise tape-hiss, which is the main nightmare of analogue reel-to-reel machines. Obviously, with this setting, the distortion increases on the transients, but, as Cicero's well-known Latin statement goes, ... "ubi maior, minor cessat"!
However, on the evening of May 12, 1981, using one of the first AD-DA converters, a Sharp-Optonica 14-bit that had just arrived from Germany, and a VHS video recorder, I recorded my dear friend and acclaimed classical guitarist Marco Taio performing a concert in Rho (Milan). As far as I know, this was the very first digital live recording of a classical music concert in Italy. When I listened to the recording, I was so impressed that I exclaimed "hi-fi has been born!".
So, I apologize for not joining the swelling ranks of the recently reborn analogue enthusiasts (the world does have its whimsical moments). Instead, after 43 years, I'd like to reaffirm my original statement, which was unequivocally correct!
In my opinion, even if nowadays there is NOT a single reason, except the economic one (producing something aimed to please the previously mentioned new analogue army of funny "nostalgics" has already become a good business), you could still make analogue recordings of light music, but not of classical music, where perfection is required. Getting rid of the tape-hiss during an “adagio” was a dream come true, along with the increased clarity of the entire audio band, and in particular the "sculptural" precision, control, speed and endless dynamic of the bass-infrabass range.
So, as soon as it arrived on the Italian market, I bought a Sony PCM F1 and years later a Tascam DAT (DA-30 MK II). I still have them!
That said, it's time to tell you what I use nowadays and how to make a state-of-the-art recording of any natural (not amplified) sonic event.
Starting with the recorders, I use a portable Tascam HD-P2, which is a great (small and light) professional machine, and, as a backup, a Tascam DR-100MKIII, which is a great "toy" too. I set them up at 44.1kHz - 24bit because I have to produce CDs, where the standard sampling rate is 44.1kHz. In fact, if I had to record at 192kHz, then I would need to downsample to 44.1kHz to create a CD. Even though I don't know if it's true (I didn't personally verify it), I heard that this operation is not entirely advisable. Instead, I have personally verified that using any higher sampling than 44.1kHz is totally useless! I can affirm this because, employing my two recorders, one set up at 44.1kHz and the other at 192kHz, I recorded a concert. Later, using my STAX SR-Lambda Pro electrostatic headphones and my system, I listened to them. Switching in real time between the two synchronized recordings, there were NO audible differences! I’m sorry for those who believe otherwise, but this is the plain reality, and all the rest is religion!
When it comes to microphones, I exclusively use Schoeps condenser mics. Like all other top brands, Schoeps produces a wide variety of mics for different uses and with various characteristics. With the essential help of Mr. Alberto Albertini (an exquisite person and, at that time, the “Schoeps’ man” in Italy), I tried out a few capsules that could suit my needs and opted for the MK41. These capsules are super-cardioid and have a unique peculiarity: their polar pattern is exceptionally frequency-independent! Furthermore, they are designed to deliver minimal off-axis colouration and maintain a very stable image too. For these reasons, they are the perfect mics for my use. Setting up two of them at 110°, with the capsules 17/18 cm apart, you can reconstruct the physiognomy of the human ears, providing a panoramic view of the aural scene in front of the mics!
That said, it's time to tell you what I use nowadays and how to make a state-of-the-art recording of any natural (not amplified) sonic event.
Starting with the recorders, I use a portable Tascam HD-P2, which is a great (small and light) professional machine, and, as a backup, a Tascam DR-100MKIII, which is a great "toy" too. I set them up at 44.1kHz - 24bit because I have to produce CDs, where the standard sampling rate is 44.1kHz. In fact, if I had to record at 192kHz, then I would need to downsample to 44.1kHz to create a CD. Even though I don't know if it's true (I didn't personally verify it), I heard that this operation is not entirely advisable. Instead, I have personally verified that using any higher sampling than 44.1kHz is totally useless! I can affirm this because, employing my two recorders, one set up at 44.1kHz and the other at 192kHz, I recorded a concert. Later, using my STAX SR-Lambda Pro electrostatic headphones and my system, I listened to them. Switching in real time between the two synchronized recordings, there were NO audible differences! I’m sorry for those who believe otherwise, but this is the plain reality, and all the rest is religion!
When it comes to microphones, I exclusively use Schoeps condenser mics. Like all other top brands, Schoeps produces a wide variety of mics for different uses and with various characteristics. With the essential help of Mr. Alberto Albertini (an exquisite person and, at that time, the “Schoeps’ man” in Italy), I tried out a few capsules that could suit my needs and opted for the MK41. These capsules are super-cardioid and have a unique peculiarity: their polar pattern is exceptionally frequency-independent! Furthermore, they are designed to deliver minimal off-axis colouration and maintain a very stable image too. For these reasons, they are the perfect mics for my use. Setting up two of them at 110°, with the capsules 17/18 cm apart, you can reconstruct the physiognomy of the human ears, providing a panoramic view of the aural scene in front of the mics!
- the power supply and back panel with output-sockets, transformer and AC filter -
For three years, I used the two MK41 alone, and I assure you that when I played a recording back, I enjoyed a perfect three-dimensional sound, with the localization of the players in direction and depth! In a few words, it was like reliving the live concert all over again, but ...
Unfortunately, there is always a “but”, and in this case, the "but" is that the MK41 capsules, as all the cardioid and super-cardioid capsules of any brand, roll off the bass range! Starting from 200Hz, they feature a 6dB/oct mechanical roll-off, so 20Hz is ... "wishful thinking". This means that if you record a violin, a guitar, a flute, a small Baroque ensemble or a flying bumblebee, this lack of extension in the low range is "almost" forgivable. However, if you record an organ, or a big orchestra with a bass drum, this deficiency becomes tragically audible! As a former bassist, I have the paranoia of a perfect reproduction of the bass and infra-bass range, so, I had to find a solution to this sonic nightmare!
I started considering alternative recording techniques and one of them was the OSS Jecklin Disc recording system (see its detailed description towards the end of this page). This system employs two omnidirectional mics, which, unlike super-cardioid and cardioid ones, feature a linear response down to infrasound. To try this system, Mr Albertini lent me two Schoeps bodies, with two MK2 omnidirectional capsules. So, on the evening of October 6, 1983, I recorded a glorious concert by “I Solisti Veneti” using the OSS, and simultaneously my normal system. The next day, comparing the two recordings (switching in real-time), I was delighted by the whole bass range of the recording made by the OSS-MK2 system, but the rest of the audio band could not compete with the one achieved with my two MK41 mics!
Ever since that day, I've become obsessed with the dream of a system with the bass and infra-bass qualities of the MK2 and the mid-high range excellence of the MK41!
After much thought, I came up with a brilliant inspiration: why not transfer the concept of “satellites + subwoofer”, the best solution for a hi-fi system, to the mics? So, I bought another body CMC3 and an MK2 capsule. However, not finding on the professional market the right electronics to accomplish my project, I had to build (following the design of my old friends and excellent technicians Daniele Gherardi and Rino Cieri) a specific preamp-crossover-mixer unit for the three mics: this quite complex unit is made up of three hi-end preamps, a second-order Bessel electronic low-pass filter (12dB/oct), and a three-way mixer. Each mic has its preamp. The output of the MK2 preamp goes into the electronic filter, and its output goes into the mixer, which mixes the resulting rolled-off signal with the signal coming from the two MK41 mics. As mentioned before, these don’t need any electronic cut to join the MK2, as they already have their mechanical roll-off. The -3dB crossover point between the MK2 and the two MK41 mics is set at 200Hz (Bessel curve, to minimise phase rotation).
It is interesting to note that you need just one MK2 because this mic works only from 5Hz up to 200Hz. At these frequencies, there is no stereo effect because the human ears, in open space, cannot locate the place of origin of any sounds below 300Hz.
Finally, the only thing left was to equalise the level of the MK2 to the level of the two MK41. This operation is of paramount importance and quite intriguing: you need a spectrum analyser, a hi-fi system that is veeeery flat in the midbass-bass-infrabass range, plus many fine-tunings, recording and playing back many concerts on my very flat system, and my STAX headphones set. The remarkable thing has been that, at the end of this quite long procedure, I had at my disposal a recording system second to none, indeed ... simply stunning!
This system works like a head with two perfect ears, so, to make an incomparable recording, during the rehearsal, you walk up and down the aisle of the venue, and when you have found the point where the sound coming from the orchestra is perfectly “in focus”, just put the “trinity” there, at the right height and inclination.
.jpg)
- the original electronic of my Schoeps CMC3 -
Now, a few words about the quality of the electronics and the improvements I have made to the mics. To help you understand exactly what I did and why, I need to give an introductory explanation.
As mentioned in the sachem pure v.2 and school of hi-fi pages, the so-called “professional” equipment is normally not, sonically speaking, high-end. This also applies to the electronics inside microphones, mixers, effect generators, compressors, and so on. All these devices have electrolytic capacitors in the signal path. If you open a large professional mixer, you’ll be impressed by the complexity of the circuits inside, which have to cater to the many “noxious” needs of today’s sound engineers, who unfortunately were not taught the mottos “the simpler, the better” or “what is missing doesn’t damage the sound and doesn’t sound itself”! In this regard, if you listen to some old jazz CDs (recorded between the late 50s and early 60s, made with simple, primitive equipment), or a CD of The Shadows, and compare them to similar music recorded today, you realize straightaway that something went wrong. It seems that the past 60 years haven’t been spent improving, but rather sadly and mercilessly flushed down the toilet!
Coming to the technology of the mics, every condenser microphone is made up of a capsule and a "body" with electronic circuits, to feed the capsule with a polarisation current, and a preamp, to provide the gain and a balanced output. So, all these mics need a “phantom" power supply: the standard one is 48V DC, but with the Schoeps "bodies" (CMC series) you can use, without losing anything, different voltages, and I have opted for 12V DC because it’s easier to build an extremely pure power supply at this voltage or find on the market an industrial one, that delivers incredibly pure DC, as an iPOWER X.
The "phantom" current runs on the two alive wires of the shielded cable between the mic and preamp, together with the balanced musical signal coming from the capsule. The problem is that the DC of the "phantom" must be stopped before the audio circuits, inside the mic, and on the other termination, before the circuits of the preamp.
The manufacturers of mics solve this problem with two small electrolytic capacitors, whereas the manufacturers of professional mixers can choose between electrolytic capacitors or small isolation transformers made for this purpose, but normally they privilege the capacitors.
.jpg)
- the modified electronic of my Scoeps CMC3 - note the red WIMA polypropylene caps and the new electrolytics too -
So, in microphones and professional mixers that don’t use isolation transformers, and where a capacitance just above 300nF (0.3μF) is required, the manufacturers usually opt for electrolytic caps, due to their small physical dimensions. But, sonically speaking, electrolytic caps are between the worst possible, and, if placed in the signal path, they can become a cause of "harsh" sound and harmonics depletion. So, to minimise any possible sonic alteration of the signal, I thought something different.
I started modifying the electronics inside the "bodies" of the two MK41, replacing all the electrolytic caps on the signal path, with beautiful Wima polypropylene ones (a crazy job of micro-soldering and moving many components from the top to the bottom surface of the PCB - see the photos above). I have also replaced the old electrolytic caps, out of the signal path, with very good and modern ones.
Regarding the body of the MK2 (the mic for the bass), it was impossible to put polypropylene caps because, for this mic, the ones of the appropriate value were too big. However, I replaced the old electrolytic caps with modern ones of top sonic quality and changed the value of the two that, in the original version, limited the frequency response of the mic to 30Hz at -3dB. Now, this mic goes down to 5Hz at -3dB, which guarantees perfect linearity at 20Hz.
Then I built the preamp-crossover-mixer unit with the signal path electrolytic-free and with the same performance as the Sachem pure v.2 preamp, which is ... "another planet"!
I don't know for sure, but, in the recording world, I’m probably the only one to employ in the signal path, from the mic’s capsule to the digital recorder, only four (less is impossible) very fast, and respectful of the original overtones content, Wima MKP10 series, polypropylene capacitors. Furthermore, this unit features only metal-film resistors ±15ppm/°C (very low thermal noise) and tolerance ±0.1%.
Regarding the cables that connect the mics to the preamp, I use very high-quality shielded cables, as short as 5 metres. This is certainly an additional benefit, considering that studios and concert halls normally use cables as long as 20 to 30 metres, or even longer!
The funny thing is that, by using this system, anyone can potentially create a stunning recording without being a so-called “sound engineer” (by the way, never call me “sound engineer” if you want to remain my friend!). The key is just to find the optimal point to place the “trinity”. If you do that accurately, you’ll be rewarded with incomparable recordings that are milestones in sound reality, sound stage, silky mid-highs, unchanged original overtones, fulminant speed, high dynamics, and a “granitic” low range, extended to infrasound!
In the first photo of the page, you can see my "trinity" (two CMC3-MK41 at 110°, with the CMC3-MK2 in the centre).
Scrolling down, the two shots show the inside of the "preamp-crossover-mixer" unit, which is state-of-the-art, and totally wire-free.
In the following two shots, you can see the changes I made to the electronics of the microphones.
Just below here, the left shot shows the crossover-mixer circuit and, from the right shot (where I'm holding a small blue cap between my fingers), you can get an idea of the difference, in physical dimensions, between an electrolytic capacitor and a group of 5 polypropylene red caps, which, paralleled together, provide the same capacitance as the small blue electrolytic in my fingers. The difference in size is huge, but there is also a big difference in sound quality and ... price!
- electronic crossover and mixer -
- electrolytic capacitor versus polypropylene -
(@@@)
Now, I will explain different two-channel (stereo mode) recording methods for classical music or any musical or sonic event performed without electronic amplification.
Well, there is no perfect method, and all methods can be roughly grouped, despite a myriad of variations, into two main categories: binaural and multi-mic methods. Each has its pros and cons, so the best approach is to choose the method with more advantages than disadvantages, considering the purpose of the recording and which sonic compromises are more or less tolerable. For live recording, I believe the binaural method is the best possible and these are the main reasons: 1- it rebuilds the sound stage in dimension and depth (3D), without phase errors, and allows perfect localisation of the musicians. 2- the binaural system records the real sound of the entire orchestra exactly as it reaches an optimal listening point, and this is the only method that can do it. So, I use this method, and my "trinity", even though it consists of three microphones, is a pure binaural system because the third mic serves the sole purpose of extending the microphone system’s response down to infrasound frequencies (5Hz -3dB)! Regarding the "cons", to be hypercritical, a small limiting point of this method (not regarding the sound quality) is that, for perfect three-dimensional playback of the recording (dimensions of the stage, depth, and localisation of the performers), you "should" use headphones because, in theory, the left ear hasn't to hear any sound coming from the right source of sound and the right ear no sound from the left source. Using speakers, you cannot fully respect this condition, especially with dipole speakers that emit sound both frontally and posteriorly, and even more so with omnidirectional speakers that emit sound in 360°. However, with serious, front-emitting, phase-correct, and time-aligned speakers, you can achieve an almost perfect result. Therefore, I believe that for live recording, this method is still superior to any other. After all, when listening to a concert or anything else, you use just two ears, and if they are good, they are more than enough, aren’t they? Another interesting system for recording live music and events is the previously mentioned OSS Jecklin Disc, which is also a binaural system but much simpler than mine. In short, it consists of a foam-covered disc of 35 cm, and two omnidirectional, full-range mics (one on each side of the disc). The capsule of each mic has to be 18 cm away from the respective disc surface and pointing 20° outward. Regarding the mics, you must use two full-range, panoramic ones. For top performance, I recommend a pair of Schoeps CMC6-MK2XS, but a valid alternative could be two Neumann KM 183, whose price is much more "humane" than that of the Schoeps. As mentioned before, four decades ago, I compared the OSS system to mine and didn’t like its mid-high range. However, now is available the MK2XS capsule, which, unlike the MK2 I used then, compensates for high-frequency losses. The Neumann KM 183 features the same peculiarity. I think the OSS is the simplest system for amateur but very good live recordings, surely better than the commercial ones! Its setup is extremely easy, considering that the entire system normally consists of a disc with the two mics on a stand, two short cables, and a small, portable recorder, such as a Tascam DR-100 MK III (or similar). Furthermore, connecting the mics directly to the recorder, avoiding the use of any commercial or professional mixer, surely is another great benefit! In this regard, I would never want the lack of "speed" and the "harsh" sound in commercial recordings, and consequently in their CDs, to be partially due, in addition to the recording technique, to the complexity of modern mixers too. However, this is just a hypothesis of mine. Nevertheless, commercial recording labels of classical music usually, not to say always, use the multi-microphone method, with countless variations, depending on the sound engineers, the venue, its acoustics, and the dimension of the orchestra. To record a large orchestra, they employ dozens of mics, each positioned in front of small groups of two or three musicians, plus other mics placed high up and pointed towards entire sections of the orchestra. The result is normally disappointing. If you have a perfect hi-fi system, the sound of the commercial CDs, produced using this method (practically almost all the CDs and LPs on the market), is only as large as the speakers, totally flat (no 3D), with difficult or impossible localisation of the performers, and a “harsh” sound, due to the short distance between the mics and the instruments, or voices. It’s a fact that the sound of any instrument or voice differs significantly in timbre, dimension, and sweetness when heard in proximity compared to from 10 meters away. Furthermore, recording all the instruments at the same distance and volume (even if later adjusted in the editing process) is NOT like listening to the sound produced by the entire orchestra from 5/6 metres behind the conductor! Indeed, the sound of an orchestra from a perfect listening point is the result of the natural acoustic decay of the different instruments, which are placed at different distances and positions for a reason! Additionally, in commercial recordings, the final “cherry on the pie” is the very possible use of electronic effects and compression. The plain reality is that the sound of a commercial CD recorded with this method is never the original and real sound of the orchestra, but rather the result of the skill and personal taste of those who carry out the editing process! Well, the "big question" is: why do they adopt this recording method? Probably, because it makes the manipulations of the master and the correction of possible orchestral mistakes and/or imperfections easier. Another reason could be that the "sound engineers" need a job, and with a system like mine, they are useless! Anyway, for a plausible answer to the " big question" ... you should ask them, not me. Joking apart, I have to honestly say that I can use the binaural method because I make live recordings, where the only requested duty is a faithful recording of the concert (I don't modify, correct or fix anything). Conversely, the production of a commercial CD seems to be more "demanding" because the musical execution must be perfect. To obtain it, you have to work on the master, and, in this process, the multi-mics method helps you a lot! Whether commercial CDs should feature flawless performances, which veeeery rarely (if ever) happen live, and make it impossible to judge the quality and skill of the orchestra, should indeed be a topic of discussion. As you can imagine, I am against this practice because it creates a noneducational mystification of reality. I would much prefer commercial CDs to be produced using only live recordings of concerts, including the audience, with its deplorable noises too! To sum up, the sound of the commercial CDs is not as "perfect" as their "perfect" executions! So, these CDs have become the best allies of the "incredibly reborn" analogue and vinyl supporters, who haven't yet understood that the unpleasant sound of commercial CDs comes from the immaculate reproduction of their original bad recordings, and NOT from sound alterations due to the use of the digital medium! About the "incredibly reborn" analogue and vinyl supporters, I think that this phenomenon, which I find grotesque, definitely deserves attention. It's emblematic of today's hi-fi and hi-end trends, which are sadly regressive, to the extent that you could call them "back to the 70s"!! In my view, this marketing operation was masterfully planned by "marketing geniuses"! They leveraged the poor sound quality of commercial CDs to convince audiophiles that digital technology was to blame. This strategic move effectively saved an agonising hi-fi market that was otherwise hurtling toward the unprofitable realm of streaming technology. Resurrecting the market of turntables, cartridges, arms, phono preamps, accessories, and the whole vinyl industry, has brought back a colossal and remunerative business, providing an unexpected breath of fresh air, or rather, a huge oxygen tank, to manufacturers, magazines and retailers! For a keen observer, the lightning speed at which all the brands have redesigned, produced, and marketed new stuff of these vintage technologies speaks volumes about the critical necessity of this marketing operation! So, magazines and retailers didn’t miss this lucrative opportunity. Thanks to a relentless campaign, they managed to discredit digital audio in the minds of audiophiles. These audiophiles, in turn, were eagerly waiting for something like this to happen, to restart squandering money on new "toys". Just like in the old days, they now have again the chance and "lust" to re-fight the lost battle of trying to achieve good sound from bad recordings! At the end of the day, what’s better than vinyl for this purpose? Vinyl offers a sound that is never "the real one" of the original recording, but rather "one" of the innumerable possible sounds, achievable through endless combinations of different "paraphernalia". For the majority of audiophiles, the perfection of digital audio was not understood or, if understood, not loved. Instead, it was seen as a limitation, reducing almost to zero the chances of "playing" with parts of the components of the system. Consequently, they had to use the system only for ... listening to music, which, to say the plain reality, has never been the main "occupation" of 90% of so-called audiophiles! For them, the problem was that the only way to modify the sound of a CD was by changing the CD player. However, the differences between CD players were (and still are) so minimal that it wasn’t worth the effort. A CD has the “nasty habit” of playing back only one sound, practically unchangeable, which is the real sound of the final editing process of the recording. This sound, in most cases, is not “exciting” and must be considered as the indelible “original sin” in the process of musical reproduction. On the contrary, the vinyl world can alter this “original sin” thanks to the infinite variations in timbre and sound of different cartridges and RIAA phono preamps, not to mention arms, turntables, interconnections, and accessories. For these reasons, vinyl cannot be considered hi-fi, let alone hi-end. It was simply the best medium to play music before the advent of digital and CDs. The puzzling and ridiculous thing is that this primitive technology is making a comeback and being marketed as top hi-end too! Anyway, the good thing is that a lot of people are now happy again. If vinyl is not hi-fi, it’s not a problem, but ... just a "small and negligible" technical detail, isn’t it? A popular Italian saying goes, "You’re happy? Everyone’s happy"! And this saying is truly, and regrettably, applicable to the hi-end audiophiles! The fact that the CD is a perfect medium for music reproduction is easily verifiable, but carefully avoided by magazines. To test this, you can burn a CD from any original master recording (I used one of my recordings). Then, perform a real-time switch between the original master and the CD. If you use the same DAC, you’ll find that they sound absolutely identical! For audiophiles who don’t have access to an original master, there’s another simple way to verify the perfection of the digital medium: burn a copy of a commercial CD with your computer. Use this copy as the source to burn another copy, and continue making a new copy from the last copy until you’re tired. Now, compare the original CD to the final copy. Surprise, surprise: there’s NO difference between the original CD and the umpteenth copy! So, there is NO doubt that a CD doesn't modify the sound. What you listen to is the real sound of its content, for better or worse, where "better" is almost always a swear word! If you perform the previous "experiment" using two professional, top-level analogue reel-to-reel recorders (Studer, Revox, Ampex etc.), listening to the third copy is more than enough to make you start understanding the "joyful" reality and fidelity of analogue! In light of these considerations, the incredible and shameful thing is that no reviewer or "guru" has ever considered "lifting the lid" on the huge and "smelly" pot of recordings and their quality, instead blaming the innocent digital medium and sacrificing it on the altar of the ignorance or vested interests! The tragic reality is that, in this way, it remains uncertain how much longer the market will continue to produce poor recordings, which have to be listened to using primitive stuff to try to mask their unpleasant "original sin". Poor hi-fi! I’m in a different dimension, where words like “hi-fi” and “hi-end” still retain their original etymological meaning. Instead of trying to alter or mitigate the “original sin” of bad recordings, I prefer making perfect recordings that don’t need any manipulation to be enjoyed. In this realm, digital is the only medium that can truly respect hi-end standards, full stop! When you listen to my recordings, you realise that the adjective “harsh” applies to everything else. You are transported back to the concert hall, enjoying the “live concert" once again! Anyway, words are just words. If you want to get an idea of the recording quality achievable nowadays, listen to the three concerts below. They are DVDs resulting from my collaboration with SOUNZ (I did the audio recording, while Chris Watson handled the video and editing). Unfortunately, due to the huge size of these files in original quality (more than one GB each), it’s impossible to upload them to a website. So, I had to rely on the online versions of these concerts. Even if not in top quality, I'm sure they will impress you with their perfect timbre and incredibly “alive” and three-dimensional sound, allowing easy localization of the performers and lightning-fast transients! I’m willing to bet that if you listen to all three concerts in a row and then immediately play any commercial CD or LP (including Telarc), your first spontaneous exclamation will be: “what kind of blurred funeral is this?” However, if you want to seriously evaluate these recordings, my strong advice is to use electrostatic headphones (STAX or similar). These, along with superior, fast and perfectly set up hi-fi systems with active subwoofers, are the only equipment that can accurately reproduce the real content of these files. Sorry, but, as you probably already know, I’m not a fan of the various “hi-end” systems advertised on FaceBook. They get hundreds of “like,” not one “laughing” or “crying” emoji, and no negative comments. Instead, in my view and generalising, they are just an incredible parade of what the human imagination and fantasy have managed to create to impress the gullible. Essentially, they allure people into squandering a fortune for, at best, a mediocre result! In this regard, go to the school of hi-fi page, and read the second topic. About the three concerts below, performed by the Auckland Youth Orchestra, the first is a great work of the Kiwi composer Anthony Ritchie, with the oboe gloriously played by a very young Noah Rudd (the recording dates back to 2017). The second concert doesn't need any presentation, being a lovely and well-known piece of music by my beloved Shostakovich, beautifully executed and recorded. The first movement features a timpani stroke with a dynamic excursion of 90 dB! The last concert is the world premiere of the stunning work of the Kiwi bassoonist and composer Ben Hoadley. Oliver Spalter, the bassist, is 19 years old, and I have to say that I haven't ever heard the double bass played live so well and with such a perfect intonation, despite the difficulty of the piece! The recording (apart from some cracking of Oliver's stool, the "usual" audience noises, and the air conditioning) is remarkable, with a clean, dynamic sound and a radiographic definition of the whole bass range. So, if the double bass on your system sounds confused and/or "booming", get rid of your speakers, and ... of the amp too, particularly if black with "big blue eyes"! Anthony Ritchie - Fantasy for Oboe and Orchestra Dmitri Shostakovich - Piano Concerto n. 2 Ben Hoadley - Concerto for Double Bass Technically speaking, my recordings feature an "unusual" dynamic range of 70~80 dB, as you can deduce from the screenshot below, which is the "spectrum analysis of the average noise floor" of a very "violent" transient, contained in my recording of a piece of modern music played by the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra.
Well, there is no perfect method, and all methods can be roughly grouped, despite a myriad of variations, into two main categories: binaural and multi-mic methods. Each has its pros and cons, so the best approach is to choose the method with more advantages than disadvantages, considering the purpose of the recording and which sonic compromises are more or less tolerable. For live recording, I believe the binaural method is the best possible and these are the main reasons: 1- it rebuilds the sound stage in dimension and depth (3D), without phase errors, and allows perfect localisation of the musicians. 2- the binaural system records the real sound of the entire orchestra exactly as it reaches an optimal listening point, and this is the only method that can do it. So, I use this method, and my "trinity", even though it consists of three microphones, is a pure binaural system because the third mic serves the sole purpose of extending the microphone system’s response down to infrasound frequencies (5Hz -3dB)! Regarding the "cons", to be hypercritical, a small limiting point of this method (not regarding the sound quality) is that, for perfect three-dimensional playback of the recording (dimensions of the stage, depth, and localisation of the performers), you "should" use headphones because, in theory, the left ear hasn't to hear any sound coming from the right source of sound and the right ear no sound from the left source. Using speakers, you cannot fully respect this condition, especially with dipole speakers that emit sound both frontally and posteriorly, and even more so with omnidirectional speakers that emit sound in 360°. However, with serious, front-emitting, phase-correct, and time-aligned speakers, you can achieve an almost perfect result. Therefore, I believe that for live recording, this method is still superior to any other. After all, when listening to a concert or anything else, you use just two ears, and if they are good, they are more than enough, aren’t they? Another interesting system for recording live music and events is the previously mentioned OSS Jecklin Disc, which is also a binaural system but much simpler than mine. In short, it consists of a foam-covered disc of 35 cm, and two omnidirectional, full-range mics (one on each side of the disc). The capsule of each mic has to be 18 cm away from the respective disc surface and pointing 20° outward. Regarding the mics, you must use two full-range, panoramic ones. For top performance, I recommend a pair of Schoeps CMC6-MK2XS, but a valid alternative could be two Neumann KM 183, whose price is much more "humane" than that of the Schoeps. As mentioned before, four decades ago, I compared the OSS system to mine and didn’t like its mid-high range. However, now is available the MK2XS capsule, which, unlike the MK2 I used then, compensates for high-frequency losses. The Neumann KM 183 features the same peculiarity. I think the OSS is the simplest system for amateur but very good live recordings, surely better than the commercial ones! Its setup is extremely easy, considering that the entire system normally consists of a disc with the two mics on a stand, two short cables, and a small, portable recorder, such as a Tascam DR-100 MK III (or similar). Furthermore, connecting the mics directly to the recorder, avoiding the use of any commercial or professional mixer, surely is another great benefit! In this regard, I would never want the lack of "speed" and the "harsh" sound in commercial recordings, and consequently in their CDs, to be partially due, in addition to the recording technique, to the complexity of modern mixers too. However, this is just a hypothesis of mine. Nevertheless, commercial recording labels of classical music usually, not to say always, use the multi-microphone method, with countless variations, depending on the sound engineers, the venue, its acoustics, and the dimension of the orchestra. To record a large orchestra, they employ dozens of mics, each positioned in front of small groups of two or three musicians, plus other mics placed high up and pointed towards entire sections of the orchestra. The result is normally disappointing. If you have a perfect hi-fi system, the sound of the commercial CDs, produced using this method (practically almost all the CDs and LPs on the market), is only as large as the speakers, totally flat (no 3D), with difficult or impossible localisation of the performers, and a “harsh” sound, due to the short distance between the mics and the instruments, or voices. It’s a fact that the sound of any instrument or voice differs significantly in timbre, dimension, and sweetness when heard in proximity compared to from 10 meters away. Furthermore, recording all the instruments at the same distance and volume (even if later adjusted in the editing process) is NOT like listening to the sound produced by the entire orchestra from 5/6 metres behind the conductor! Indeed, the sound of an orchestra from a perfect listening point is the result of the natural acoustic decay of the different instruments, which are placed at different distances and positions for a reason! Additionally, in commercial recordings, the final “cherry on the pie” is the very possible use of electronic effects and compression. The plain reality is that the sound of a commercial CD recorded with this method is never the original and real sound of the orchestra, but rather the result of the skill and personal taste of those who carry out the editing process! Well, the "big question" is: why do they adopt this recording method? Probably, because it makes the manipulations of the master and the correction of possible orchestral mistakes and/or imperfections easier. Another reason could be that the "sound engineers" need a job, and with a system like mine, they are useless! Anyway, for a plausible answer to the " big question" ... you should ask them, not me. Joking apart, I have to honestly say that I can use the binaural method because I make live recordings, where the only requested duty is a faithful recording of the concert (I don't modify, correct or fix anything). Conversely, the production of a commercial CD seems to be more "demanding" because the musical execution must be perfect. To obtain it, you have to work on the master, and, in this process, the multi-mics method helps you a lot! Whether commercial CDs should feature flawless performances, which veeeery rarely (if ever) happen live, and make it impossible to judge the quality and skill of the orchestra, should indeed be a topic of discussion. As you can imagine, I am against this practice because it creates a noneducational mystification of reality. I would much prefer commercial CDs to be produced using only live recordings of concerts, including the audience, with its deplorable noises too! To sum up, the sound of the commercial CDs is not as "perfect" as their "perfect" executions! So, these CDs have become the best allies of the "incredibly reborn" analogue and vinyl supporters, who haven't yet understood that the unpleasant sound of commercial CDs comes from the immaculate reproduction of their original bad recordings, and NOT from sound alterations due to the use of the digital medium! About the "incredibly reborn" analogue and vinyl supporters, I think that this phenomenon, which I find grotesque, definitely deserves attention. It's emblematic of today's hi-fi and hi-end trends, which are sadly regressive, to the extent that you could call them "back to the 70s"!! In my view, this marketing operation was masterfully planned by "marketing geniuses"! They leveraged the poor sound quality of commercial CDs to convince audiophiles that digital technology was to blame. This strategic move effectively saved an agonising hi-fi market that was otherwise hurtling toward the unprofitable realm of streaming technology. Resurrecting the market of turntables, cartridges, arms, phono preamps, accessories, and the whole vinyl industry, has brought back a colossal and remunerative business, providing an unexpected breath of fresh air, or rather, a huge oxygen tank, to manufacturers, magazines and retailers! For a keen observer, the lightning speed at which all the brands have redesigned, produced, and marketed new stuff of these vintage technologies speaks volumes about the critical necessity of this marketing operation! So, magazines and retailers didn’t miss this lucrative opportunity. Thanks to a relentless campaign, they managed to discredit digital audio in the minds of audiophiles. These audiophiles, in turn, were eagerly waiting for something like this to happen, to restart squandering money on new "toys". Just like in the old days, they now have again the chance and "lust" to re-fight the lost battle of trying to achieve good sound from bad recordings! At the end of the day, what’s better than vinyl for this purpose? Vinyl offers a sound that is never "the real one" of the original recording, but rather "one" of the innumerable possible sounds, achievable through endless combinations of different "paraphernalia". For the majority of audiophiles, the perfection of digital audio was not understood or, if understood, not loved. Instead, it was seen as a limitation, reducing almost to zero the chances of "playing" with parts of the components of the system. Consequently, they had to use the system only for ... listening to music, which, to say the plain reality, has never been the main "occupation" of 90% of so-called audiophiles! For them, the problem was that the only way to modify the sound of a CD was by changing the CD player. However, the differences between CD players were (and still are) so minimal that it wasn’t worth the effort. A CD has the “nasty habit” of playing back only one sound, practically unchangeable, which is the real sound of the final editing process of the recording. This sound, in most cases, is not “exciting” and must be considered as the indelible “original sin” in the process of musical reproduction. On the contrary, the vinyl world can alter this “original sin” thanks to the infinite variations in timbre and sound of different cartridges and RIAA phono preamps, not to mention arms, turntables, interconnections, and accessories. For these reasons, vinyl cannot be considered hi-fi, let alone hi-end. It was simply the best medium to play music before the advent of digital and CDs. The puzzling and ridiculous thing is that this primitive technology is making a comeback and being marketed as top hi-end too! Anyway, the good thing is that a lot of people are now happy again. If vinyl is not hi-fi, it’s not a problem, but ... just a "small and negligible" technical detail, isn’t it? A popular Italian saying goes, "You’re happy? Everyone’s happy"! And this saying is truly, and regrettably, applicable to the hi-end audiophiles! The fact that the CD is a perfect medium for music reproduction is easily verifiable, but carefully avoided by magazines. To test this, you can burn a CD from any original master recording (I used one of my recordings). Then, perform a real-time switch between the original master and the CD. If you use the same DAC, you’ll find that they sound absolutely identical! For audiophiles who don’t have access to an original master, there’s another simple way to verify the perfection of the digital medium: burn a copy of a commercial CD with your computer. Use this copy as the source to burn another copy, and continue making a new copy from the last copy until you’re tired. Now, compare the original CD to the final copy. Surprise, surprise: there’s NO difference between the original CD and the umpteenth copy! So, there is NO doubt that a CD doesn't modify the sound. What you listen to is the real sound of its content, for better or worse, where "better" is almost always a swear word! If you perform the previous "experiment" using two professional, top-level analogue reel-to-reel recorders (Studer, Revox, Ampex etc.), listening to the third copy is more than enough to make you start understanding the "joyful" reality and fidelity of analogue! In light of these considerations, the incredible and shameful thing is that no reviewer or "guru" has ever considered "lifting the lid" on the huge and "smelly" pot of recordings and their quality, instead blaming the innocent digital medium and sacrificing it on the altar of the ignorance or vested interests! The tragic reality is that, in this way, it remains uncertain how much longer the market will continue to produce poor recordings, which have to be listened to using primitive stuff to try to mask their unpleasant "original sin". Poor hi-fi! I’m in a different dimension, where words like “hi-fi” and “hi-end” still retain their original etymological meaning. Instead of trying to alter or mitigate the “original sin” of bad recordings, I prefer making perfect recordings that don’t need any manipulation to be enjoyed. In this realm, digital is the only medium that can truly respect hi-end standards, full stop! When you listen to my recordings, you realise that the adjective “harsh” applies to everything else. You are transported back to the concert hall, enjoying the “live concert" once again! Anyway, words are just words. If you want to get an idea of the recording quality achievable nowadays, listen to the three concerts below. They are DVDs resulting from my collaboration with SOUNZ (I did the audio recording, while Chris Watson handled the video and editing). Unfortunately, due to the huge size of these files in original quality (more than one GB each), it’s impossible to upload them to a website. So, I had to rely on the online versions of these concerts. Even if not in top quality, I'm sure they will impress you with their perfect timbre and incredibly “alive” and three-dimensional sound, allowing easy localization of the performers and lightning-fast transients! I’m willing to bet that if you listen to all three concerts in a row and then immediately play any commercial CD or LP (including Telarc), your first spontaneous exclamation will be: “what kind of blurred funeral is this?” However, if you want to seriously evaluate these recordings, my strong advice is to use electrostatic headphones (STAX or similar). These, along with superior, fast and perfectly set up hi-fi systems with active subwoofers, are the only equipment that can accurately reproduce the real content of these files. Sorry, but, as you probably already know, I’m not a fan of the various “hi-end” systems advertised on FaceBook. They get hundreds of “like,” not one “laughing” or “crying” emoji, and no negative comments. Instead, in my view and generalising, they are just an incredible parade of what the human imagination and fantasy have managed to create to impress the gullible. Essentially, they allure people into squandering a fortune for, at best, a mediocre result! In this regard, go to the school of hi-fi page, and read the second topic. About the three concerts below, performed by the Auckland Youth Orchestra, the first is a great work of the Kiwi composer Anthony Ritchie, with the oboe gloriously played by a very young Noah Rudd (the recording dates back to 2017). The second concert doesn't need any presentation, being a lovely and well-known piece of music by my beloved Shostakovich, beautifully executed and recorded. The first movement features a timpani stroke with a dynamic excursion of 90 dB! The last concert is the world premiere of the stunning work of the Kiwi bassoonist and composer Ben Hoadley. Oliver Spalter, the bassist, is 19 years old, and I have to say that I haven't ever heard the double bass played live so well and with such a perfect intonation, despite the difficulty of the piece! The recording (apart from some cracking of Oliver's stool, the "usual" audience noises, and the air conditioning) is remarkable, with a clean, dynamic sound and a radiographic definition of the whole bass range. So, if the double bass on your system sounds confused and/or "booming", get rid of your speakers, and ... of the amp too, particularly if black with "big blue eyes"! Anthony Ritchie - Fantasy for Oboe and Orchestra Dmitri Shostakovich - Piano Concerto n. 2 Ben Hoadley - Concerto for Double Bass Technically speaking, my recordings feature an "unusual" dynamic range of 70~80 dB, as you can deduce from the screenshot below, which is the "spectrum analysis of the average noise floor" of a very "violent" transient, contained in my recording of a piece of modern music played by the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra.
This analysis was made considering the 2~3 seconds interval without music, just after a strong percussion, when the entire orchestra falls silent. The main energy and components up to 200~300 Hz are mostly due to the air conditioner noise of the Concert Hall (especially the peak at 75 Hz and its 3rd harmonic at 225 Hz). The other peaks in the range 400~3.000 Hz are the low-level residual of the harmonics generated by the percussion instrument. The other noise and components over 3 kHz are not significant for this analysis. The average level of the "noise floor", when filtering the above components and considering the mid-frequencies range only, can be measured in the range - 90/- 100 dB (peak value). Thus, the overall dynamic of the recording can be evaluated at 70~80 dB, referred to the peak level of the percussion (0 dB).
These numbers, and the total absence of tape hiss, should make the incredibly "resurrected" lovers of reel-to-reel analogue recordings (and vinyl) start thinking correctly and technologically about digital, and move, at least for once, from religion to science!
Well, after the above “long” digression about analogue/digital (sorry, I'm so outraged that I had to do that!), I’d like to finish with a “funny” observation regarding musicians. Many are accustomed to thinking that the only recording method is the multi-microphone one, thanks to its widespread use. So, when I record a new orchestra, it’s quite normal for some musicians to ask why I don’t put mics around them! When I then tell them, very plainly, “because I want to make a beautiful recording, and not a sonic crime”, their usual reaction is a polite smile, but I’m sure they’re thinking that I’m a “funny old man". In this regard, it is emblematic of what happened, many years ago, at the end of the final rehearsal of the “Christchurch Vespers”, which was going to be a world premiere of the Kiwi composer Andrew Perkins, performed by Bach Musica NZ in the Holy Trinity Cathedral of Auckland.
When I was almost finished setting up "my trinity" and the recording equipment, Andrew Perkins, the composer, came to me and, after introducing himself, asked if I was the official recorder of the concert. After my affirmative reply, he gently, but with a doubtful expression, asked me if the “three mics up there” were enough to record an orchestra! I simply replied: Andrew, your doubts are common, but are you going to hire another twenty, or more, ears for listening to your concert? The three "ears" up there are much more sensitive and linear than yours, and positioned in a perfect listening point too, so, I do think they are enough!
Making the best of a bad situation, he had to accept my "not-too-posh" reply, but my feeling was he didn't change his mind at all.
At that time, Andrew Perkins used to live in Melbourne, where he was a Tutor at the "Conservatorium of Music" of Melbourne University.
So, when the CD was ready, I posted it to him and, after a few days, I received this essential email:
Franco, the recording is excellent - my university supervisors thought it was stunning! Thank you so much - Andrew