Newsgroups: alt.drumcorps
Subject: Re: Records and CD quality
From: <MHUGHES@MIAMIU.BITNET>
Date: Thursday, 3 Sep 1992 12:55:49 EDT
Organization: Miami University - Academic Computer Service

In article <Aug31.153024.53551@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>,
gordons@CS.ColoState.EDU (vahl scott gordon) says:
>
>Kobold was very clever, but there were also big flaws with his recordings,
>especially from the period you describe.  His mike placement made the
>closers in 1979 and 1980 virtually inaudible whenever the company front
>was up close to the crowd.  Listen to BD 79/80, and Spirit 79/80.  The
>horns get MUCH SOFTER at the end of the show!  81 was one of the worst,
>because his mike placement really couldn't handle the addition of the
>pit (although the worst part of that year was the location of the staff).
 
I never said that Kobold's recordings were perfect, just that they are MUCH
better than Rock's material.  I agree that there is a noticeable loss of
fidelity in the 1980 recordings over previous years, but the phase problem
in field percussion apparent in later years had not yet surfaced.
 
I also think it a mite bit unfair to blame Kobold for all the balance
problems on the 1981 championships records.  One must remember that this
was recorded in Montreal's Olympic Stadium, probably one of the worst
acoustical venues for drum corps in North America.
 
>Now I'd like to see what Ken could have done with Larry's equipment.
>Larry's mikes are far superior and generate much more presence in the
>horns (at least for 1984-1987).  I would guess that Ken would lower these
>and move them a bit farther back.
 
A juicy proposition, indeed!  Too bad Mr. Kobold is no longer with us.
 
>> Ask any audiophile why Telarc has some of the most natural sounding         l
>> recordings in the US market.  Reason: minimalistic miking.  This is the
>> reason the Mercury recordings from the 50s and 60s rival most of today      l
>> recordings for clarity.  It is not so much the technology...it is the people
>> who are applying the technology.
>
>Agreed.  But I'm not sure the same approach automatically works for
>drum corps.  It did before the addition of the pit.
 
So why would it not now?  Like you said, just move the microphones back a
little bit.  The advantages gained in phase coherence would far outweight
any slight overbalance in the pit.  Use of microphones with the right
pickup pattern could help minimize crowd noise at the same time.
 
>The 86 BD recording is excellent, especially if played through a good system.
>The imaging is great, it's like you're there.
 
Wrong, wrong, wrong!!  Listen to the FIELD PERCUSSION.  It is total slop on
the CDs, and 86 was the year of the AWESOMELY tight BD drum line.  The CD
sounds NOTHING like the BD drum line did in person.
 
BTW, I have a good system, too....Adcom electronics, Sony ES CD player,
Vandersteen 2ci speakers on filled Sound Anchor stands in an acoustically
treated room.
 
>> When I sit in my favorite spot, what I hear is the sound of a drum corps
>> FROM ONE POINT IN SPACE.  This is what the recordings should emulate if one
>> is interested in a realistic reproduction of the event.
>
>Tough to do with all those darned people in the audience!  Also, your point
>is somewhat misleading since what it really should do is emulate the original
>sound, so that when you listen to the recording, from your NEW ONE POINT IN
>SPACE, you hear the sound you would have heard from one point in the
>seats.  If you record from one point, the effect is not always the same.
 
I think you are arguing where that *one point* should be, and I'm not.  We
both agree that mics should be placed at a point that is optimal for full
ensemble fidelity.  This issue is that it is at *a* point and not *several*
points.
 
>The miking in 1987 was especially sloppy.  Blue Knights recording sounds as
>if half of the mikes aren't even turned on.  Phantom's recording is so out
>of balance that you can't even hear much of the field percussion over the
>pit noise.  VK's show is entirely drowned out by crowd noise.  At this time
>I wrote to DCI and complained that Ken's recordings (he was still making
>his own tapes of finals) were actually starting to sound better than DCI's,
>because you could hear the corps over the crowd!.  I think they got a lot
>of similar complaints that year, so the next year (1988) they raised the
>mikes substantially and placed them closer to the field.  This is the
>arrangement that has been in use since then.  There is no doubt that
>crowd noise has been reduced, as has pit noise.  But since the horns
>are usually pointing "under" these mikes, they aren't recorded with the
>clarity or presence of the prior ones.
 
There is another side effect of the abnormally raised mics....it dramatically
affects the timbre of all the percussion instruments.  My previous citing
of the tenor sound in PR's closer in 1991 is a prime example.  For field
snares, the result is a lot of top-head sound.  Hell, the reason most corps
use scoops (sound projectors) on their snares is so that we get more snare/
bottom-head sound!
 
>I have a friend that is an audiophile stereo technician.  We compared the
>1986 BD CD with the 1988 BD CD on the best system in his store at full
>volume.  There is NO comparison.  The 1988 sounds like it's being played
>through a stereo, while the 1986 sounds like you're there.  The imaging is
>so much better ... you can close your eyes and pick exactly where various
>performers are.
 
I challenge you to repeat this experiment listening to the field percussion.
Within the first minute of the show, try to pick out where the snare line is.
I believe you may reassess your earlier judgment.  Granted, the hornline
may be more effectively recorded than in 88, but there are so many
intricacies in field percussion that get swallowed up in Rock's recordings...
it is truly disheartening to us lovers of drum corps percussion.
 
I should also add that listening at full volume is not necessarily the best
prescription for judging reproductive fidelity.  All audio equipment produces
higher distortion at high output levels (amp clipping, speaker cone
break-up, etc.)
 
>I'd also like to see more studio recordings of drum corps.
 
I know this would be very controversial, but I think the above suggestion is
not a bad idea.  Think of the improvement in clarity that could be achieved
if drum corps were recorded in a more controlled setting, say, one of the
following alternatives:
 
  1. recorded live in front of a crowd, but in a fixed concert formation.
  2. recorded marching & music performance in an empty stadium.  This could
      eliminate numerous balance problems in recording by presenting the
      engineer with opportunities to experiment with optimal mike placement
      (which I wholeheartedly believe would be in the stands somewhere) as
      well as ridding him (or her) of the largest source of background noise
      they currently deal with....the audience.
  3. recorded in an empty stadium as in 2., but add crowd applause tracks
      in a mix.
 
Any ideas or thoughts?
 
Mike Hughes
Organization: Junior, Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA