HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: recording choral monophonic music [?]
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:32:43 GMT

>Basically what type of machine is used in recording choral monophonic music?
>2-track, 4-track, 8-track or what? Also how are the choir and the mics usually
>placed?

Pretty much the same stuff that you use for polyphonic choral stuff.  A single
mike pair will usually do a nice job, unless you have terrible problems with
your hall acoustics and need to do nasty things to compensate.  From time to
time I see folks using a spaced triad and three-track recorders, but it's not
a very popular technique these days.  Generally you can get much better imaging
with a single mike pair than with any multimike configuration, and close miking
any choral group tends to destroy the sense of ensemble very easily.  I tend
to place the mikes in an ORTF configuration at about balcony level, maybe 
one -third of the way from the rear of the hall as a starting point, but your
particular environment and personal preferences can alter this considerably.

>Second I have a more general question which is more in the style of a clari-
>fication. Is it correct that multitrack recording (4-track and above) is only
>used for popular music (like I've always thought until now that I've really
>asked myself that question), or is it completely false? Again if it makes
>a difference whether it's live or studio I'd be interested to hear the answer
>for both.

No, multitrack recording is very widely used for classical music, because
the amount of alteration that can be made to the recording is much greater.
If an orchestra is being paid union scale they are not going to sit around
and play for a while until the engineer can find the correct microphone
placement.  In addition, if major errors are made, it's often possible to
redub a couple of instruments into a recording.  This generally results in
horrible recordings with no imaging to speak of, very mushy sound in general,
extremely harsh string sounds (unless they reequalize the strings, in which
case they sound mushy and unnatural), and a very strange foreground/background
transition for soloists.  Kind of like the dreck that DG pushes.
Multitrack recording is a very bad idea for anything but pop music unless
there are extreme time constraints on performers, in which case you'll
probably have more serious problems anyway.
--scott
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: cook@bebop.esd.sgi.com (Doug Cook)
Subject: Re: Soundproofing
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 19:09:29 GMT


In article <TONYB.92Jul28115644@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu>, tonyb@juliet.ll.mit.edu writes:

> What you need to do is build a "room within a room", ie a
> free-standing box made of 2x4's and sheetrock.  This doesn't need to
> cost too much -- 2x4's are a buck each, and sheetrock is pretty cheap
> as well.  You then can stuff your bedfoam inbetween the outside and
> inside walls (er, maybe not -- I'm sure that's a firecode violation.
> A few inches of fiberglass will work well and won't cost too much).
> This can give you a very big attenuation compared to just about any
> other construction method.

Except that sheetrock is a notoriously acoustically "live" surface;
you'd also have to cover the inside of such a "room within a room"
with carpet/foam/etc.

	-Doug
Xref: sparky rec.audio.pro:1319 rec.music.makers:8462 rec.music.synth:12627
From: sarisky@a.chem.upenn.edu (Mark J. Sarisky)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers,rec.music.synth
Subject: Re: Tascam MDR-8
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:30:11 GMT
Followup-To: rec.audio.pro
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Jul23.071259.6233@news.cs.brandeis.edu> jacob@max.cc.brandeis.edu ( ) writes:
>
>An unresolved question: what determines the choice of 8mm (Tascam, Akai)
>versus VHS (Alesis)?

Ah, brace yourselves for the Format Wars lads.  Remember the VCR days?  this
one could be even more amusing.

>
>Obviously VHS is less expensive but I've heard that 8mm is technically
>superior, but that's at the level of a "rumour"... or thereabouts.

The 8mm format has some advantages.  In the wear and tear end of things, the
8mm should have less of a tape degredation problem.  The tape is in contact 
with the head through 180 degrees of head rotation as opposed to >350 degrees 
for the S-VHS used in the AdAT.  This means less wear on the tape.  Alesis
claims that since they run their S-VHS at twice normal speed, the tape 'floats'
on a cushion of air and there is no wear at all.  Yeah, right.  Don't buy that
one, only time will tell which system is most succeptable to head/tape wear.
My money is on Tascam.  Of course, if you have two, you can always make backups
of your tapes.  The 8mm format is also widely used in the computer industry 
for backups of data, archiving, program installation, etc.  This means it is
commonly used to store digital information.  VHS is commonly used to store
reruns. 

>
>In any case it would seem almost incredible that the price difference
>is what would have determined Alesis to go with VHS.

It is price, in a roundabout way.  The people at Alesis didn't want to 
reinvent the wheel, so they adapted a solid sound technology that has a basis
in almost every home in America---VHS, ok S-VHS but still. . .

I've heard stories that the 8mm format heads were felt to be more difficult
to adapt to multitracking and so Alesis opted for S-VHS

Developing a new format would be counterproductive.  Where do you get tapes?
How many $50,000 engineers do we need to develop it?  Why they chose S-VHS over
8mm?  Probably because the development cost was the lowest and they felt they 
could get the product out to market soonest.  They were right.

BTW, my bass player has an AdAT.  He did pay list for it, it does sound as good
as any DAT I've worked with and seems to be quite well made.  The biggest thing
I noticed when using it was the lack of tape hiss.  Bouncing tracks is also
as amazing as you might guess.  The unit really shows off the flaws in all the 
other components in his studio!  Now he needs a better board!

mark sarisky
sarisky@a.chem.upenn.edu





Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: recording choral monophonic music [?]
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 03:14:26 GMT

In article <4910@gold.gvg.tek.com> chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Chris Christensen) writes:
>
>I don't understand you discussion about Monophonic vs. Polophoinc  but
>I have recorded acapella, with accompaniment (piano, orchestra).

He's referring not to recorded monophony but to musical monophony, but
it doesn't make a difference for the recording.  Just because everyone
is singing the same line doesn't mean that you don't want a good stereo
image.

>The most important thing to me is to rely on the choral director's
>judgement and *assume* that the choir/acconpainment is balanced
>correctly at the conductors podium. If this isn't the case there is
>little, but something that you can do........

But that depends on the hall you're in.  Many choral directrs who
conduct with orchestra in resonant spaces (churches and other such
stone halls) know that the sound is going to sound different to the
audience than to him or her.  But as we all know, if you put a mic
rig out where it sounds good to the audience, the recording will come
out muddy.  Usually it works out that the rig placement is reasonably
good near the conductor, but the microphone hanging 12 feet over the
maestro isn't going to hear it quite the same as the conductor.

>I record directly to DAT (two channels)  

Me too, though I go through external pre-amps and A/D first.  I have
yet to find a portable with internal pre-amps and A?D that I like.
Also, if I'm running more than one rig, then of course it's gotta be
mixed in first.  

I don't do accent mics much, but sometimes I'll put the sphere behind
the conductr and a pair of wide-spread hypers back by the chorus so that
the words don't get lost, particularly if the space is very live and
eats consonants for lunch.

>Most of my recordings are of live concerts in halls.  Choirs sound
>best in a somewhat live enviornment.  If the room is dead or doesn't
>have a "voice" (room sound) of it's own then I am forced to add it
>electronically.........

Yuck!  I too must confess to this sin, but given the choice, I'd rather
ask the director to record elsewhere if possible.

>Also some use spot mics on specific solo voice/instruments.  This
>works but can be tricky.

Very tricky.  Here is where multi-tracking can be useful.  Get the
stereo image down, spot mic each section, and figure it all out later.


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: defrain@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul D. DeFrain -- aka master guru)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: Tascam MDR-8
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:23:15 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <84192@netnews.upenn.edu> sarisky@a.chem.upenn.edu (Mark J. Sarisky) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.071259.6233@news.cs.brandeis.edu> jacob@max.cc.brandeis.edu ( ) writes:
>
>BTW, my bass player has an AdAT.  He did pay list for it, it does sound as good
>as any DAT I've worked with and seems to be quite well made.  The biggest thing
>I noticed when using it was the lack of tape hiss.  Bouncing tracks is also
>as amazing as you might guess.  The unit really shows off the flaws in all the 
>other components in his studio!  Now he needs a better board!
>

How well does "punching-in/out" work?  This seems next to impossible to me
but I know someone has figured it out.

Paul D.
Xref: sparky rec.audio.pro:1310 rec.music.makers:8448 rec.music.synth:12606
From: kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers,rec.music.synth
Subject: Tascam MDR-8
Summary: New digital 8-track
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:08:38 GMT
Reply-To: kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


The current issue of MIX Magazine has an article on digital recording
systems.

The new Tascam 8-track machine, the MDR-8 is listed.
I called Tascam and they claim agressive pricing (aDAT territory) and an
8mm tape format.

They also say it should be available before the end of the year.
All I can say is '93' might be interesting.

I'm going to buy somebody's digital 8-track and if Tascam is on time to
market I'll be doing some comparison shopping to see what's the best.

Since I don't have the $4k for an aDAT and they are being discounted
at all, I can afford to wait.
--
/*  -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers.    */
/*      For I can only express my own opinions.              */
/*                                                           */
/*   Kent L. Shephard  : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com   */
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers,rec.music.synth
From: bgood@sundagger.lerc.nasa.gov ()
Subject: Re: multitrack recordings of other than popular music
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:13:21 GMT

In article <44520@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> sklower@diva.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Sklower) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.040745.4793@news.cs.brandeis.edu> jacob@max.cc.brandeis.edu ( ) writes:
>}Is it correct that multitrack recording (4-track and above) is only
>}used for popular music ... ? ... if it makes
>}a difference whether it's live or studio I'd be interested to hear the answer
>}for both.

>Recordings of the San Francisco Symphony have been made by ``London''
>records with many, many microphones fed into a multitrack recorders
>sitting outside the building in a semi-rig.  (According to pictures
>in the local paper).
>
>I have it on reasonably good authority (only second hand from a
>friend of the engineers involved) that some recordings in the
>past 3 years of the Saint Louis symphony were recorded with
>multiple microphones mixed live onto a 2-track DAT recorder.
>(Originally a Sony PCM-2500 with the antialiasing filters
>replaced by apogee filters, more recently a Sony PCM-2700.
>The mutual friend was the guy who ``moded'' the DAT).

...and my brother tells me the last couple Detroit Symphony recordings
he played on (with Chandos) were done with a small number of microphones,
a mixing console the engineers brought with them, and a rented
Panasonic DAT deck.  It was mixed in real time.

brian good




Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: jacob@max.cc.brandeis.edu ( )
Subject: 8mm vs VHS for digital multitrack was Re: Tascam MDR-8
Organization: Brandeis University Math Department
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 11:33:48 GMT

this is a comment on metlays's and mark sarisky's comments...

In article <3582@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> metlay@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu (metlay) writes:

>Nope, it's the truth. VHS tape transports haul the tape out of the 
>machine and wrap it halfway around creation; 8mm is much gentler on
>the tape. It's also more compact, more solid in terms of tape winding
>and rewinding, and a commonly accepted standard for computer use (before
>the DAT came along, 8mm backup media were the most popular ones around;
>in fact, they may still be).

(mark sarisky's comments were similar)

i'd just like to mention first that whatever the transports do to the
tape doesn't seem to be an intrinsic feature of the format, to a certain
extent.

for example akai's adam wraps their 8mm tape 221-degree around the head to
achieve 12-track capability whereas most 8mm vcr and exabyte drives only wrap
the tape 180-degree (i'm told).

i'm not sure for how much of the alleged superiority of 8mm the handling
of the tape by the transports exactly accounts, and would like to point
out this also depends on the machine itself and not only on the format.

note i'm not questioning the fact that intrinsically 8mm might be better, more
robust, better made, more clever and so on, i'm ignorant of the topic and i'm
all willing to believe metlay and mark. but given that for both of them
part of why they thought 8mm was superior was the fact that 8mm transports
wrap the tape only 180-degree around the head and given that that might
not even be the case with the tascam machine, i just thought i'd ask...


Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: elahde@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi
Subject: Seeking info on U-matics
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 10:17:05 GMT

        I am interested in getting info or pointers on the U- matic
        system used for mastering CD:s. I'm more interested in the
        system itself, not so much in specific brands &c. Thanks,

Eero
Xref: sparky rec.audio.pro:1303 rec.audio:10663
From: jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro,rec.audio
Subject: Re: Class A/B/whatever... What does it mean?
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:18:17 GMT
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST
In-reply-to: gfl@hera.uucp's message of 17 Jul 92 14:32:48 GMT


It seems that my question (Class A/B/whatever... What does it mean?)
has sparked some hearty debate...

In article <1992Jul17.143248.5738@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> gfl@hera.uucp (22402-lenahan) writes:
>The original question:
>>>    What are the specific differences between class A/B/whatever 
>>>        audio components?
>The original answer:
  [deleted for brevity]

>Now aside from the babble about complementary tubes (????)!,
>This is way beyond the interest of someone who doesn't understand
>the definition of class A, AB, B, etc.

On the contrary -- I would rather hear all the nitty-gritty details.
It doesn't take a genius to understand the difference now that it has
been explained.  I know many out there in the industry would like the
consumers to think that any understanding on their part of audio
technology is impossible, but get a grip... :-) :-)

My original reason for posting was a desire to break through some of
the mumbo-jumbo which seems to prevail both in advertisements for, and
in reviews of, audio equipment.  The particular passage in mind was in
a quote from "Stereophile" which appeared in a sales brochure for
Kinergetics Research equipment (quoted from memory):

	"the first CD-player to break the Class-A boundary"

It had always been my understanding that class A/B applied only to
amplifiers -- I didn't know exactly what it meant, but I knew that A
must be better...  :-) :-)

I thought to myself -- why not post, and see if we can clear up some
of the haze around amplifier technology.  Or at least stir the mud a
little... :-)

So, let the technical explanations (and debate) continue.  I would
personally like to know how class A vs. B vs. AB fits together with
Tube vs. Transistor.  Grant states that the comment in the original
response about "complementary tubes" is babble.  Why is this not
valid?

And please, lets remember that there are many people out there who
possess some understanding of electronics, but are beginners in audio
electronics.  The fact that someone does not yet know the terminology
does NOT indicate that they are incapable of understanding a good,
detailed, explanation.


				Later...

						Josh Diamond
						AKA Spidey!!!






--
 /\ \  / /\  Josh Diamond                              		   jmd@bear.com
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \          Beauty is the purgation of superfluities. -- Michelangelo
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.cd,rec.music.classical
From: jacob@max.cc.brandeis.edu ( )
Subject: a practical example was Re: recording choral monophonic music [?]
Followup-To: rec.audio.pro
Organization: Brandeis University Math Department
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 10:00:58 GMT

first of all thanx to all who provided comments on my question,
on the net or thru email.

now here's a case study for those who have the cd i'm solliciting
comments about, because the recording setup is known (it is
described in the booklet) and the results can be immediately
evaluated...

what are your comments on the recording of guillaume de machault's
"messe de notre dame" by the ensemble gilles binchois -- it's from
a swiss label but distributed by allegro in the us.

the piece is "mostly" monophonic in the sense that the polyphonic
ordinary of the mass (written by machault) is presented as embedded
in the (gregorian, anonymous, monophonic) proper of the fete de
l'assomption which constitutes the larger part of the work (thus
that cd falls "mostly" under the description of the subject line)

whoever has (listened to) the cd what are your comments -- not from
the point of view of the performance or the work but of the quality
of the recording?

note: the recording setup (machine, mics) is described at the end
of the booklet -- i remember the machine was a tascam but i'm not
sure what model. i seem to recall it was a 2-track dat or dash
machine but i'm not sure -- i'd be grateful if someone who owns
the cd could describe that setup to me in email (it's not very long)
as i don't have the cd anymore...

Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: cms2839@ultb.isc.rit.edu (a.stranger)
Subject: Re: Tascam MDR-8
Originator: cms2839@ultb
Organization: Minimalist Music for Hyperactive Children (MMHC)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:25:58 GMT

In article <84192@netnews.upenn.edu> sarisky@a.chem.upenn.edu (Mark J. Sarisky) writes:
>
>The 8mm format has some advantages.  In the wear and tear end of things, the
>8mm should have less of a tape degredation problem.  The tape is in contact 
>with the head through 180 degrees of head rotation as opposed to >350 degrees 
>for the S-VHS used in the AdAT.  This means less wear on the tape.  Alesis

				my experience with Hi-8 videotape ( does
the Tascam use regular 8mm or Hi-8 ? ) would tend to indicate otherwise
. although the resolution is beautiful , it is quite prone to severe
dropouts . i understand that Sony has introduced a new tape formulation
which is supposed to alleviate much of this , but it costs $25/ea. and i
haven't seen it yet .

-- 
       @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
       @     "Imagination keeps the shadows away  -  Xymox      @
       @~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@
       @       a.stranger  -  CMS2839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu        @
Xref: sparky rec.audio.pro:1333 rec.music.makers:8496 rec.music.synth:12645
From: conner@cae.wisc.edu (Powers Conner)
Subject: Re: speaker cabinet design software
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 27 Jul 92 07:42:50 CDT

In article <1992Jul27.112532.11848@meaddata.com> bussey@meaddata.com (Greg Bussey) writes:
>
>A friend asked me to solicit the net for info. I know there was alot
>of discussion not too long ago.
>
>Please send me info on any design programs you are familiar with.
>
>Thanks!
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>- Greg Bussey                                  bussey@meaddata.com  -
>- If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice  (rush) -
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
 



 Me too I am interested.  Conner@cae.wisc.edu
   Thanks!
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: lnz@lucid.com (Leonard N. Zubkoff)
Subject: Remote Monitoring
Organization: Lucid, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 07:06:26 GMT

When I record live music away from my home, it would be nice to have speakers
available for monitoring (particularly for imaging) in addition to headphones.
Dragging along my Acoustat 2+2's and a pile of electronics is not feasible. :-)

Are the AR Studio Partners the best choice for this, or is there another system
short of dragging along a separate amp and speakers.  How good are these AR
speakers?  Thanks for any info.

		Leonard
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: sracer@cecelia.media.mit.edu (Andy Hong (Go Speed Racer!))
Subject: Re: Resurrecting Recordings
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory Music Group
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:10:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.083054.8578@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> ireland@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:

   [...]

   I'm not an expert on this type of thing, so you'll probably want to
   talk to a few more people about this. But, that's what I know about it.

The experts:

	Sonic Solutions
	1891 E. Francisco Blvd
	San Rafael, CA  94901
	(415) 485-4800

The founder of the company, J. Andy Moorer, has quite a reputation in the
signal processing world.

More CD re-releases (of old-crackly stuff--to use the technical term here)
have been cleaned up with the Sonic Solutions NoNoise system than any
other system.

I got to fiddle with the system myself during a visit to the company a
couple months ago.  I was totally blown away.

--andy
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro