# Multi miked orchestral recordings



## Pmartel63 (Dec 9, 2020)

So, when did record labels start multi miking orchestral recordings?

Some of the most amazing recordigs were done in the early days of stereo with only 2 or 3 mikes max. The RCA living Stereo recordings, early Decca's and the Mercury Living Presence as well as Coumbia 360 recordings

I would so love to see a shift back to minimalist recording using minimal miking

As one who does recordings I use the RCA Living Stereo as my reference 

My gear consists of 2 Rodes NT2A microphones, Focusrite Claret 4 Pre and recording on a Macbook pro at 192Khz using Repear software with post edit in Adobe Audiotion usually only for lvel normalization. I set my mikes up on a Manfrotto light stabd using a K&M long stereo bar

I go for the most natural sound possible

Would love to 'hear' your thoughts on this


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

It's a nice sentiment--and I agree with it 100%--but it is financially impractical. Symphony orchestras these days are unionized, and paid by the minute. If 40 of them are 25 minutes into a Dvorak and somebody blows a clam, all 40 of them would have to go back to bar 1.

With iso booths you're only paying OT for the clam provider.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

When recordings were made using only 1 mic for mono, or 2 for stereo, engineers knew just how to position every musician relative to the mic(s). Their positioning bore little or no resemblance to what we now consider standard orchestral seating.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Multi-miking became a real gimmick when stereo recordings started. Many records were made to show off the new technology and people's hi-fi setups. Some of the worst offenders were the London Phase-4 recordings. But Columbia sure made them - listen the the Christmas recording made by Andre Kostelanetz - with headphones it makes you dizzy. The hall records were made in mattered, too. Often some instruments got lost or maybe even it was the composer's fault. In any case, adding a spot mike here and there allowed them to accentuate a particular player so it could be heard. Multi-miking also allowed a producer to create an orchestral balance and sound that simply could never be replicated in the concert hall. When I listen to those old RCA Living Stereo, Mercury Living Presence and other minimalist recordings it is astonishing what clarity they could get with so little.


----------



## Pmartel63 (Dec 9, 2020)

mbhaub said:


> Multi-miking became a real gimmick when stereo recordings started. Many records were made to show off the new technology and people's hi-fi setups. Some of the worst offenders were the London Phase-4 recordings. But Columbia sure made them - listen the the Christmas recording made by Andre Kostelanetz - with headphones it makes you dizzy. The hall records were made in mattered, too. Often some instruments got lost or maybe even it was the composer's fault. In any case, adding a spot mike here and there allowed them to accentuate a particular player so it could be heard. Multi-miking also allowed a producer to create an orchestral balance and sound that simply could never be replicated in the concert hall. When I listen to those old RCA Living Stereo, Mercury Living Presence and other minimalist recordings it is astonishing what clarity they could get with so little.


Agreed, I do recordings and like I said, my goal is to emulate the early stereo recordings

I am doing that with choir with the gear I mentioned in my original post

If you'd like I can send you a recent example I did of a choir and using Final cut Pro X for post editing.

Send me a PM if you'd like 

Yes, agreed the Pahse 4 recordings were horrible, although that appeared to change with some of the last recordings Arthur Fiedler made with the Boston Pops


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

There are a lot of good articles out there on minimalist miking. For instance:








Minimalist vs. Multitracking: Another Choice


Virtually all commercial rock, pop, country, urban, and jazz albums are recorded using multitrack digital recorders like the ubiquitous Pro Tools. Band members, their producer, and enginee...




audiophilereview.com





Minimalist recording techniques are most evident on headphone listening, because headphones lay out the mix from left-to-right for everyone to hear*. Speaker systems vary so much in size and shape and placement and room and phase coherency of the drivers, that by-and-large the details of recordings are buried under a thousand other factors. It takes a real "headphone-like" speaker image to display the advantages of minimalist miking, and conversely to display the disadvantages of the many-microphone technique.


* - Unless you crap it up by remixing it


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Pmartel63 said:


> I am doing that with choir with the gear I mentioned in my original post.


Choir is _particularly _sensitive to minimalist techniques because the sound of an ensemble singing together -- a living, breathing ensemble listening to each other and making millimeter adjustments to create the unified sound of a well-rehearsed choir -- well, that's just something you can't get with iso booths.

Plus, most choir music really benefits from a large stone church setting, or a reverberant wooden hall.


----------



## Pmartel63 (Dec 9, 2020)

NoCoPilot said:


> Choir is _particularly _sensitive to minimalist techniques because the sound of an ensemble singing together -- a living, breathing ensemble listening to each other and making millimeter adjustments to create the unified sound of a well-rehearsed choir -- well, that's just something you can't get with iso booths.
> 
> Plus, most choir music really benefits from a large stone church setting, or a reverberant wooden hall.


And that is my specialty, choiirs 

Recently I did a recording here in Toronto at St. Paul's Basilica, a gorgeous 200 year old cathedral and gorgeous acoustic

Was really happy with results as were the choir director and members would lie you to hear this, how can I send it to you, I did post aiudio edit in Final cut pro X as we put phto and titles with it


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

How about you use WeTransfer to send it to [email protected]. It's free and easy. Would love to hear it.


----------



## Pmartel63 (Dec 9, 2020)

NoCoPilot said:


> How about you use WeTransfer to send it to [email protected]. It's free and easy. Would love to hear it.


Great, I will send you the video lilink from YouTube


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Wow. This is a FABULOUS recording. You done yourself proud.


----------



## Pmartel63 (Dec 9, 2020)

NoCoPilot said:


> Wow. This is a FABULOUS recording. You done yourself proud.


Wow, thank you so much and hugely appreciated
Only 2 mics for the recording amd post editing in Final cut Pro X


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

There has been a lot of chatter in recent years about going back to the future with micing ... usually meaning two mics, one in the middle pointed at the orchestra, the other next to it pointed either left or right at a wall -- but I note on most 2020 or newer recordings I can pick out solo instruments fairly easily .. meaning either more mics or lots of dial twisting in post-production. About the only practice from the bad old days that has completely disappeared is gain riding -- or changes in volume by engineers so you don't have to do it at home.


----------



## RobertKC (Dec 9, 2013)

The recording imbedded in post #11 sounds very good on my 2-channel office hi-fi system.

With that said, IME/IMO, the recordings that have the best audio quality are modern performances/recordings (i.e., performances recorded in the last 15 years or so) that were captured and mastered in multi-channel hi-res digital (e.g., 24bit/192kHz PCM), and delivered on a disc featuring DTS-HD MA 5.1 (e.g., Blu-ray, Pure Audio Blu-ray, Ultra HD Blu-ray).

These high-quality multi-channel recordings involve multiple microphones.

IME/IMO, when played via one of my tube-based surround-sound hi-fi systems (I have 4 such systems in my home), Blu-ray’s DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio track is far superior to stereo in creating the illusion of being in the symphony hall (or opera house, or church) – particularly for large-scale compositions.

I own a number of late 1950s and early ‘60s era RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence recordings that were remastered and released on SACD - and they sound surprisingly good for vintage recordings. However, vintage recordings pale in comparison to modern high-quality Blu-ray recordings that feature hi-res surround-sound.

Here’s a thread that lists some modern Blu-ray recordings that have the best audio (and video) quality that I’ve experienced: Blu-ray Videos of Classical Concerts

Here’s a fabulous audio/video Blu-ray recording of sacred choral music that I highly recommend:










Here’s an excellent modern audio-only recording of sacred choral music that I think sounds fabulous via SACD surround-sound:










Again, 2-channel can sound very good, but IME/IMO, modern surround-sound recordings are capable of superior audio quality.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

I much prefer the recording to be done with minimal mics, usually two at the center. We have two ears, not twenty ... we, as a listener, are not capable of moving about in a concert setting to test the best spot for listening. With the musician in a booth with their own mic(s) there is some engineer in a booth far away that is then mixing the total ensemble of the entire group to the way he or she likes it, basically not allowing us to listen much as we would during a live event. The recording is what it is ... if it were played live and no recording was made, the bloopers would still exist ... it's part of nature to make simple mistakes, though most professional musicians like this are pretty much error free ... but nobody can predict when that string will break on a violin, or a reed splits on a woodwind, nor if one of the drummer sticks goes flying through the are because of a lost grip. It's all part of the live concert. That's the sound I want to hear, not something that has been manufactured in a sound engineers booth.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Krummhorn said:


> The recording is what it is ... if it were played live and no recording was made, the bloopers would still exist ... but nobody can predict when that string will break on a violin, or a reed splits on a woodwind, nor if one of the drummer sticks goes flying through the air because of a lost grip.


Classical music has more to gain from minimalist miking than any other genre. And arguably not even all CM....


----------



## RobertKC (Dec 9, 2013)

Krummhorn said:


> I much prefer the recording to be done with minimal mics, usually two at the center. We have two ears, not twenty ... we, as a listener, are not capable of moving about in a concert setting to test the best spot for listening. With the musician in a booth with their own mic(s) there is some engineer in a booth far away that is then mixing the total ensemble of the entire group to the way he or she likes it, basically not allowing us to listen much as we would during a live event. The recording is what it is ... if it were played live and no recording was made, the bloopers would still exist ... it's part of nature to make simple mistakes, though most professional musicians like this are pretty much error free ... but nobody can predict when that string will break on a violin, or a reed splits on a woodwind, nor if one of the drummer sticks goes flying through the are because of a lost grip. It's all part of the live concert. That's the sound I want to hear, not something that has been manufactured in a sound engineers booth.


I have full season tickets to the symphony and opera, plus I attend other classical performances (e.g., chamber and choral music) every year. Before the pandemic, I attended on average 30 professional classical concerts each season. (Thankfully, classical concert series have recently begun resuming full schedules.)

I know how classical music sounds in a world-class venue that is optimized for the music (e.g., symphony vs. opera).

Have you heard a modern performance/recording that was captured and mastered in multi-channel hi-res digital (e.g., 24bit/192kHz PCM), and delivered on a disc featuring DTS-HD MA 5.1 (e.g., Blu-ray, Pure Audio Blu-ray, Ultra HD Blu-ray), and played via a high-quality surround-sound hi-fi system (preferably that employs vacuum tubes)? 

I have. Many different recordings. I have five hi-fi systems in my home, four of which are multi-channel capable. (And, I can choose between tube and solid-state amps in every system.) I can play LPs, CDs, SACD, hi-res downloads, streaming, and every Blu-ray variant. 

IME, there’s no comparison between modern multi-channel hi-res vs. 2-channel audio recordings (including the vaunted RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence vintage recordings, and modern stereo recordings).


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

RobertKC said:


> I have five hi-fi systems in my home, four of which are multi-channel capable. (And, I can choose between tube and solid-state amps in every system.) I can play LPs, CDs, SACD, hi-res downloads, streaming, and every Blu-ray variant. IME, there’s no comparison between modern multi-channel hi-res vs. 2-channel audio (including the vaunted RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence vintage recordings, and modern stereo recordings).


"No comparison" between live & recorded? Yeah, I'd buy that.


----------

