[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
Whole takes have edits :) What would be fun is to release ALL the takes. That would be cool. Having worked on a number of live, unedited recordings, I can say that they are mostly not unedited. Even taking whole phrases, or even pieces, is still some editing, but these unspecified ones had plenty more edits. It's too bad, because a small minority do release fine, minimally edited work. I hasten to mention that Tohoiko's is ubdoubtedly unedited, as he is a serious artist, and certainly a scenario like taking the best of the three takes is reasonable, the way LPs were done in the 60s. I look forward to hearing the CD. The last time I heard Toyohiko, which was many years ago, it was good playing. I think the compelling thing about Video right now is that for a variety of reasons, which will be overcome in a few years, or sooner, it is very difficult to edit video with a separate, hires soundtrack. Nigel's video of the Dowland, which is superb, really looks like one take. (with a some reverb, perhaps, but very tasteful) If you look in the corner of the video you can see what looks like a Sennheiser MKH 20, a very good lute mic. Because video is the the only Really Real, for the next mote of time, everyone should release their CDs on DVD, with video. If a solo lutist wants to make a statement, that's the way. I can guarantee you that that won't happen till the editing is worked out :) Perhaps sooner rather than later. Perhaps someone on this list! It would be fun. dt At 06:19 PM 3/16/2008, you wrote: This is fascinating, in that the topic of recordings is coming up, in particular with lack of editing. Toyohiko Satoh just released a new CD, music of Phillip Franz LeSage de Richee, on a period instrument, in a.. plain gut, no edits, complete whole takes. It is refreshing, to say the least. I love it. It is a very real sound, and not the homogenized sound we are used to hearing. ed To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
Release it as a DVD! I'll lend you a camera! best dt At 02:07 PM 3/16/2008, you wrote: Passion is a delicious fruit too, David ;-) ! I agree with you and I also deplore the standardization of lute sound in recent recordings. But H2s or equivalent devices can be very useful, impartial tools to work with, certainly NOT to make a Cd !!! I am preparing to do a recording next summer for a little French label (Peyrole Records) whose policy is to make ONLY live recordings, no editing AT ALL... They have a very good equipment of course and appropriate places to record, plenty of time to do it, but I must say it still sounds like a challenge. Have to choose the proper repertoire for a first experience, in my case plucked strings duets with my friend and colleague Thierry Meunier (lutes, theorbo, baroque guitar and renaissance guitars). I don't know precisely what will come out of it but I look forward to that test, not without apprehension, but that is stimulating, isn't it ? All the best, Jean-Marie To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
Dear All, These are topics close to my heart at the moment, having started to make simple MP3 recordings for my website. So far, my efforts are all essentially single takes, though in a couple of cases with a kind of join in the middle. It is so hard to play a complete piece without a blemish of any kind - from that point of view a recording is unlike a live performance, where passion is everything and even quite large blemishes go unnoticed. My recordings so far have plenty of blemishes, and I would like to redo most of them to iron a few more out, but time is in short supply. (also I have found a clearer sound now, I think, by recording from a greater distance (still only about 1m) in a drier acoustic and increasing the reverb time - non-obvious but you don't know until you test it.) As a lute maker I am keen to capture the sound of particular instruments as well, so sugary-sweet homogeneity is definitely not what I want. Bonne chance, Jean-Marie! J'attends les resultats avec impatience Best wishes, Martin Jean-Marie Poirier wrote: Passion is a delicious fruit too, David ;-) ! I agree with you and I also deplore the standardization of lute sound in recent recordings. But H2s or equivalent devices can be very useful, impartial tools to work with, certainly NOT to make a Cd !!! I am preparing to do a recording next summer for a little French label (Peyrole Records) whose policy is to make ONLY live recordings, no editing AT ALL... They have a very good equipment of course and appropriate places to record, plenty of time to do it, but I must say it still sounds like a challenge. Have to choose the proper repertoire for a first experience, in my case plucked strings duets with my friend and colleague Thierry Meunier (lutes, theorbo, baroque guitar and renaissance guitars). I don't know precisely what will come out of it but I look forward to that test, not without apprehension, but that is stimulating, isn't it ? All the best, Jean-Marie === 16-03-2008 21:21:06 === David T. wrote: Most lute recordings are heavily processed in addition to recording in churches or resonant spaces, so there is a kind of artificial standard in place. .. The reverb/church effectively removes all or most of this aspect of the technique. You could say that in this regard the modern taste for lute has a sweet tooth .. The current state of recording exists however to cover up or remove mistakes, not to amplify the intrinsic beauty of the instrument. Hear, hear! I couldn't agree more. My own experience as a listener and cd reviewer, as a player with a few recordings of my own and as a producer of some other recordings I cannot agree more with what David T. wrote. This is how it is now and I think it is a sad state of affairs. But isn't up to us to change this? Let's make different recordings. Let's listen with different ears. Let's try to capture the essence of the lute sound and the musical personalities of the players in live performances in our recordings. Let's not make technical perfection and a lush 'easy' sound our priorities. The results are sterile cds for easy consumption: muzak. So, to all of you out there with your Zooms: go for the real thing, don't imitate cds, but record yourself as realistically as possible. David - in the middle of the easter season, hence the passion David van Ooijen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.davidvanooijen.nl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 16-03-2008 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
David, Jean-Marie et les autres There is another side to this question. Jacob Heringman speaks about it on his interview with Ed Durbrow, and also on his home site. He is often not happy with his recordings, he feels that he over monitors his playing in the recording context (he is too careful not to make mistakes and he takes less risks), and he also misses the audience to which can respond. I saw that a year ago with Jordi Savall, the Gambist, playing Marin Marais. During the whole concert he played well, during the bis (encore), he played better, during the tris, he was completely relaxed and amazingly spontaneous. I have never heard him play like it. He was clearly dialoguing with the audience, who he suddenly felt deserved of his best. You mention LPs, and that makes me think of some Casals and Co recordings. In fact, they are probably 78s, and you can hear him singing away like a sick cow, and yet how marvellous some of those mono recordings are. I very much doubt whether there were more than three takes, there, if that. This is surely one of the reasons that some LPs are far and away superior to CDs. Although the analog format does seem to have something to do with it. When CD first came out, I noticed that there was a sort of listener's fatigue when you compared CD and LP, as though the brain was working harder to reconstruct the sound picture. On single instruments, or voices, I have also noticed this when comparing stereo and mono recordings. We all know that stereo is aimed at tricking the brain, but it seems there is some unconscious brain-work involved in merging the two images, click into mono and there is a definite drop of tension. Now I think that adding an image to digital, may somehow make us less conscious of that. We are being helped along by the picture, that gives us back some of the presence that the digital recording does seem to lack. On this issue, Sergiu Celibidache would have certainly supported your call for video. As you know he only believed in live performance. He thought that a performance should never be repeated identically, and it was bad luck if someone missed his concert. However, finally when Video recording became a possibility, he did allow a few to be made (Since his death some other pirate recordings have appeared). My own feelings about this issue are ambiguous. Often at a concert when I close my eyes, I seem to hear far better, and yet on one occasion I had seats very high up in the Theatre des Champs-Élysées. It was a performance of the Kuikens and Anner Bylsma. I was rather disappointed, I could hardly hear anything. Then I remembered, I had brought binoculars with me. When I used them, I suddenly could hear better. I don't know whether it was because the binoculars cut down my overall vision and my brain had less to take in, or whether I was better able to associate the movements with the sounds, and therefore became more capable of deciphering the patterns. Nevertheless, I listened to the rest of the performance through my binoculars. Oh well, i have not mentioned lute performances, but in many concert halls for those, you had better take along binoculars and an ear- trumpet. We have the good fortune here, in Paris of having fortnightly performances of ancient music in the salon de musique of Madame de Sevigne, at the Musée Carnavalet, and I also have a monthly lute salon in a private flat once a month. Such ideal venues make recordings seem extremely pale. However, performers do frequently fluff their notes. At the private lute salon, I tell worried performers that it is ownly polite to make a few errors pour encourager les autres. However, these over edited recordings you have mentioned, while seeming an advantage to a performer who fears that duff note will be there for eternity, in fact, just raise the expectations of the audience to an impossible level for the concert performer. While saving yourself pain in the studio, you will just increase it in the concert hall. In short, I think that a recording without image and performer's presence must be of the very best quality, as close to an exciting live performance, and on the edge of the performers capability, warts and all, Bon courage Jean-Marie. The great advantage to performer-listeners of the video recording (apart from the fact that it is difficult to cheat) is that we can appreciate or criticize not only what we hear, but also what we see. The stance of the performer, the position of his hands, whether we esteem he is playing the correct instrument, just see all that fun around the latest YouTube performance, or Forqueray fiasco for some. Anthony Le 17 mars 08 à 07:49, David Tayler a écrit : Whole takes have edits :) What would be fun is to release ALL the takes. That would be cool. Having worked on a number of live, unedited recordings, I can say that they
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
I work a lot with a particular singer who responds very well to audiences, and the audiences to him. Studio recordings with him tend to be a lot safer and therefore blander. For our next cd, we've done three studio edited recordings together so far, I've talked him into a live recording. But we have yet to decide about the particulars, perhaps it'll be a 'live studio audience' and not a regular concert. Maybe 10, 20 people for whome we'll give three times the same concert in one day, after which we'll pick the best takes of each indivudual song. There are more ways of giving a live feeling to a cd than just recording a live concert. It's good to keep control over the sound, and adding a feet-shuffling, sneezing and coughing audience is not always helping. Remember Alfred Brendl. ;-) David - Matthew Passion tonight: exiting! David That sounds an excellent compromise, to me. I am sure it will be a great success. That reminds me, however, of another solution to this audience noise problem, it was at a wonderful performance of Lully's Atys, with Les Arts Florissants, where William Christie (looking down his nose at the public) warned that the music they were about to hear was of such exceptional delicacy and refinement that it could take absolutely no coughing, sneezing, creaking of seats, or other indelicate disturbances. The audience wore suitably shocked faces, and darted reproving and suspicious glances at their neighbours. The whole performance was held in the darkest hush I have (n)ever heard. Some may even have forgotten to breathe. Not one cough or splutter, until half-time, when the audience broke into resounding applause, and being mainly French, erupted in what is called quinte de toux, but whether these were quinte juste or quinte naturelle or even Quinte doublement augmentée, I would leave that to William's skilful and refined musical ear to decide. (quinte de toux French for a coughing fit, probably because they come in sets of five, rather than because of the musical interval, unless it was based on the musical interval of houping cough). Anthony Le 17 mars 08 à 11:58, LGS-Europe a écrit : Anthony wrote: misses the audience to which can respond. I work a lot with a particular singer who responds very well to audiences, and the audiences to him. Studio recordings with him tend to be a lot safer and therefore blander. For our next cd, we've done three studio edited recordings together so far, I've talked him into a live recording. But we have yet to decide about the particulars, perhaps it'll be a 'live studio audience' and not a regular concert. Maybe 10, 20 people for whome we'll give three times the same concert in one day, after which we'll pick the best takes of each indivudual song. There are more ways of giving a live feeling to a cd than just recording a live concert. It's good to keep control over the sound, and adding a feet-shuffling, sneezing and coughing audience is not always helping. Remember Alfred Brendl. ;-) David - Matthew Passion tonight: exiting! David van Ooijen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.davidvanooijen.nl To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
Thanks a lot! That's really helpful. This obviously means one has to have top quality gear and a big experience in positioning mics and setting all the thing in order to sound just natural, which explains quite a lot why it's so expensive to record in a professional studio. However thinking in a budget way (even if our equipment allows for 88.2/24) I wonder if there are ways of correcting (by EQ ?)already amateurish recordings, mainly problems that are caused by cheaper mics like metallic or hissing sound quality (very common!). JL -Original Message- From: David Tayler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 9:26 PM To: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings Absolutely, yes, it is better to have more bits. I'm just saying the primary advantage, one of many, for the 24 bits is the depth of the sound and the easy volume changes. When presented with the long list of choices, unless disk space is really an issue, you are looking at 44/24 for CD, 48/24 everything else including MP3, MP4 output. You can certainly use 44.1 for MP3 if your software/reverb package is set up for it--and some are optimized for it. And you can experiment with 88.2/24, 96/24 if you wish! Or 192/24. Most effects are not optimized for higher sampling sampling rates, but are optimized for higher bit depths. The main issue with lute recordings is the gain and the mic/converter sound. And how to make an edit. On the lute, you can basically edit on every note. And some people do! The workflow is important--don't start in 48 and convert to 44.1 for CD, or start in 44.1 and convert to 48 for video. Don't put dither on top of dither (the most common mistake). I mainly use mics for EQ so that is less of a consideration, but some people use eq a lot. I think most ppl use too much compression and it makes the sound worse-- Use manual compression with crossfades and 24 bit gain! That is the real secret. Most recordings I make really have either minimal or zero effects processing--but if something needs fixing, I want to have that option. And it's all in 24 bit for the gain resolution issues. And if recording at home, you will need some kind of effects to take the edge off. So here you have to be practical and decide if it sounds better or just looks better. And when auditioning gear you have to have a friend set it up, so you don't know what is what :) Never record in less than 24 bits, for whatever reason you like! You can always trim the extra bits, but not the other way. Mainly, recordings invariably have One Big Mistake. For example you have a really fine firewire interface, Canare Starquad or Mogami cable, quiet studio, great lute. excellent performance, and a budget mic that the salesperson strongly recommended. Sennheiser shock mounts. But the mic was made in China for $7, the Megastore bought it for $45 and it sold for $200. And the recording sounded bright and hissy... And just try to get someone to part with their $7 mic. Or you have a nice mic and a ten dollar cable, and the recording has a buzz on it or a local radio station. Or you have the most expensive equipment in the world and the phase is reversed. Or the mic is too close and there is a lot of bass boom finger noise. Hey it is really hard to make a good lute recording, why else would they have a thousand edits in them? People rarely use 88.2 even though it is better for CD mastering. (assuming the converters are optimized properly--not always the case!) Higher sampling rates, these can sound better if handled correctly, but can easily sound worse. But, absolutely, yes, it is better to have more bits. And in video, always use high definition, even if the end result is youtube. I suspect in a few years you will be able to get a really good flash recorder for under $100---and they really are very cool. dt __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 2949 (20080315) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
I don't think EQ will do it, the free room simulator software or the more expensive professional versions help a little bit, but once you lose the essential harmonics it is difficult to replace them. When using budget mics, the main thing is minimize the reflections. So here you need a really large room, in a studio the sound insulation will invariably remove most of the high frequencies. Most lute recordings are heavily processed in addition to recording in churches or resonant spaces, so there is a kind of artificial standard in place. The main effect of the reverb or churchy acoustic is to provide a continuous bed of sound, otherwise when shifting in and out of bar chords the sound would stop and start. This stopping and starting of the sound reflects the way the instrument actually sounds. And of course good players are better at managing the differences. The reverb/church effectively removes all or most of this aspect of the technique. You could say that in this regard the modern taste for lute has a sweet tooth--and the analogy perhaps in art would be to take the Mona Lisa and photoshop it so the colors are all really jazzed up, saturated and vibrant. Then the painting would look nice and kodachromy, but you would lose the sfumato.--the integral transitional elements. On the other hand, just like a really good restoration, a tiny hint of sound processing might bring us back closer in sound to the best lutes played by the best players. The current state of recording exists however to cover up or remove mistakes, not to amplify the intrinsic beauty of the instrument. Paradoxically, the very best lutes by modern makers are not always the ones best represented in recordings. I heard a Gottlieb lute once that had the most unbelievable sound, yet the internal resonance was not ideal to apply reverb either as a church or with software--and this is as it should be! That lute needed only a nice room and a player--it would be the Truth Lute--beautiful yet revealing. But it would be difficult to record that instrument and bring it into the sugary mainstream. dt At 09:04 AM 3/16/2008, you wrote: Thanks a lot! That's really helpful. This obviously means one has to have top quality gear and a big experience in positioning mics and setting all the thing in order to sound just natural, which explains quite a lot why it's so expensive to record in a professional studio. However thinking in a budget way (even if our equipment allows for 88.2/24) I wonder if there are ways of correcting (by EQ ?)already amateurish recordings, mainly problems that are caused by cheaper mics like metallic or hissing sound quality (very common!). JL To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
David, your comparison of the digital camera and the digital recorder are helpful, although I am not technologically competent enough to say just how far you can go in that direction. Evidently, the lens or microphone set the overall limit in recording quality, whatever equipment comes afterwards. Although, you can always digitally enhance a poor recording (image/sound), the quality is never quite the same, and the ease with which this can be done on digital is a danger, as much as an advantage. I fear the temptation to over tweak leads us to a sort of stereotyping and neutralization giving that bland sameness to so many recent photos and sound recordings. It doesn't much matter if everyone's holidays snaps look identical, with the sun always shining, the sky ideally blue, and everything snapped into focus, including the background; but in a music recording, if engineers all have the same ideal of room reverb, and believe we all have the same noisy hifi systems, the result is a boosted electrified lute in a halo of room echo. It is so easy to digitally remove every blemish (photos and sound), even, as you say, editing single notes on a lute recording, but in so doing, editing out all the life from the recording. Why are live recordings, with their blemishes and coughs, so much more interesting? Meanwhile, some of us may become used to the low level lossy compressed format of Mpeg and Jpeg on computers and i-pods, but they are just convenience formats, for note jottings and snap shootings and as David says should never be enlarged. CD is bad enough, but I think these compressed formats are actually beginning to degrade the public expectation of what a good recording or image might be. Please remember that a good analog recording or photo is often equal and even, in some cases , well ahead in quality over digital recordings, albeit at a high price. Take an analog photo on a Linhoff plate camera, or make a lute recording on two synchronized Mono Nagra tape recorders, if you have chosen the right lens and microphone, you will find out what I mean. http://tinyurl.com/24kfdr Right there is the price and convenience to consider, but the high quality results this sort of equipment can attain should be the target that professional photographers and sound engineers should be aiming for. Of course equipment is not everything. As David implies, the skill of the sound engineer in knowing how to place the microphones, and to find the best settings for the recording venue, which should mean a minimum of post recording tweaking, and so a better result even from a not so good recording system.You can even tweak the recording colour by choosing a particular mic, but you can not expect an amateur to be able to do that. On the other hand, we have all heard those hifi recordings of second- rate orchestras, marvellous sound, but uninteresting music; a musician will no doubt prefer the appalling sound of a Robinhood record, recorded directly from the speaker of some radio loudspeaker during a live performance of an exceptional orchestra and conductor at one of their moments of greatness. It is good to have the best of both worlds, however. Keep those Zoom H2s rolling, but please no H2 CDs, unless, of course, your performance has just reached that Robin-Hood status and you think that you may have peaked, or worse. One lutist on the French lute list has a personally made live recording of Michael Schäffer in concert (who sadly died so young), perhaps this is the sort of historic lute candidate for a Robin Hood recording? Anthony PS David is right to give us the minimum quality equipment for a reasonable CD or DVD quality, but I fear many will settle for this minimum quality. That is obviously why it is sometimes better to hire the competence of a sound engineer who has very good equipment and knows how to use it. Although, how many are really capable of making good lute recordings and have that sort of equipment, I sometimes doubt. Perhaps David could comment on that. Just one other question: in the case of a digital camera all megapixels are not equal. The size of the sensor determines that too many pixels on too small a sensor will make more noise. Is there an equivalent problem on Digital sound recordings? Le 15 mars 08 à 22:33, David Tayler a écrit : Sorry... When you buy a flash audio recorder--a great teaching/learning tool-- you have to decide in the settings how much resolution to use. There's lots of settings, and the manufacturers are not helpful. The bits is like (but not exactly like) the number of megapixels on a camera, more megapixels means you can enlarge the photo more, or have more detail. When you listen to a CD you are hearing 16 bits of resolution, that is like say a two megapixel camera in terms of history and quality. If you were to try to make the volume louder, so that it
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
Passion is a delicious fruit too, David ;-) ! I agree with you and I also deplore the standardization of lute sound in recent recordings. But H2s or equivalent devices can be very useful, impartial tools to work with, certainly NOT to make a Cd !!! I am preparing to do a recording next summer for a little French label (Peyrole Records) whose policy is to make ONLY live recordings, no editing AT ALL... They have a very good equipment of course and appropriate places to record, plenty of time to do it, but I must say it still sounds like a challenge. Have to choose the proper repertoire for a first experience, in my case plucked strings duets with my friend and colleague Thierry Meunier (lutes, theorbo, baroque guitar and renaissance guitars). I don't know precisely what will come out of it but I look forward to that test, not without apprehension, but that is stimulating, isn't it ? All the best, Jean-Marie === 16-03-2008 21:21:06 === David T. wrote: Most lute recordings are heavily processed in addition to recording in churches or resonant spaces, so there is a kind of artificial standard in place. .. The reverb/church effectively removes all or most of this aspect of the technique. You could say that in this regard the modern taste for lute has a sweet tooth .. The current state of recording exists however to cover up or remove mistakes, not to amplify the intrinsic beauty of the instrument. Hear, hear! I couldn't agree more. My own experience as a listener and cd reviewer, as a player with a few recordings of my own and as a producer of some other recordings I cannot agree more with what David T. wrote. This is how it is now and I think it is a sad state of affairs. But isn't up to us to change this? Let's make different recordings. Let's listen with different ears. Let's try to capture the essence of the lute sound and the musical personalities of the players in live performances in our recordings. Let's not make technical perfection and a lush 'easy' sound our priorities. The results are sterile cds for easy consumption: muzak. So, to all of you out there with your Zooms: go for the real thing, don't imitate cds, but record yourself as realistically as possible. David - in the middle of the easter season, hence the passion David van Ooijen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.davidvanooijen.nl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 16-03-2008 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
This is fascinating, in that the topic of recordings is coming up, in particular with lack of editing. Toyohiko Satoh just released a new CD, music of Phillip Franz LeSage de Richee, on a period instrument, in a.. plain gut, no edits, complete whole takes. It is refreshing, to say the least. I love it. It is a very real sound, and not the homogenized sound we are used to hearing. ed At 10:07 PM 3/16/2008 +0100, Jean-Marie Poirier wrote: Passion is a delicious fruit too, David ;-) ! I agree with you and I also deplore the standardization of lute sound in recent recordings. But H2s or equivalent devices can be very useful, impartial tools to work with, certainly NOT to make a Cd !!! I am preparing to do a recording next summer for a little French label (Peyrole Records) whose policy is to make ONLY live recordings, no editing AT ALL... They have a very good equipment of course and appropriate places to record, plenty of time to do it, but I must say it still sounds like a challenge. Have to choose the proper repertoire for a first experience, in my case plucked strings duets with my friend and colleague Thierry Meunier (lutes, theorbo, baroque guitar and renaissance guitars). I don't know precisely what will come out of it but I look forward to that test, not without apprehension, but that is stimulating, isn't it ? All the best, Jean-Marie === 16-03-2008 21:21:06 === David T. wrote: Most lute recordings are heavily processed in addition to recording in churches or resonant spaces, so there is a kind of artificial standard in place. .. The reverb/church effectively removes all or most of this aspect of the technique. You could say that in this regard the modern taste for lute has a sweet tooth .. The current state of recording exists however to cover up or remove mistakes, not to amplify the intrinsic beauty of the instrument. Hear, hear! I couldn't agree more. My own experience as a listener and cd reviewer, as a player with a few recordings of my own and as a producer of some other recordings I cannot agree more with what David T. wrote. This is how it is now and I think it is a sad state of affairs. But isn't up to us to change this? Let's make different recordings. Let's listen with different ears. Let's try to capture the essence of the lute sound and the musical personalities of the players in live performances in our recordings. Let's not make technical perfection and a lush 'easy' sound our priorities. The results are sterile cds for easy consumption: muzak. So, to all of you out there with your Zooms: go for the real thing, don't imitate cds, but record yourself as realistically as possible. David - in the middle of the easter season, hence the passion David van Ooijen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.davidvanooijen.nl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://poirierjm.free.fr 16-03-2008 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1330 - Release Date: 3/15/2008 2:36 PM Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
Warmest thanks, David, for all the detailed explanations. Much appreciated by the dummy I am! In this case, you will want 48/24 unless you wish to make a CD recording, for that you need 44.1/24. Does this mean that one can only burn this type of file to an audio CD? Thanks again! Dennis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
CDs are 44.1/16 bit, and 44.1 is a bad fraction. In converting 44.1/24 to CD, the music is organized into blocks, and the extra bits are tossed (remember that they can be used for gain), but if you record at 44.1 you then can get almost exactly that info onto the CD. If you record at 48, you have to convert 48 to 44.1, which to my ear never sounds right. However, it can be done. Nowadays, there is no need to do it since you can play the original 24 bit file on a compter or laptop. For $100 or less you can get a sound card for a laptop or PC that has exceptional sound. However, you can put the full 48/24 onto any DVD, and it will sound great. A sort of sound track with no movie. Or you can even put multiple versions on a DVD You can also put higher resolutions on to a DVD audio. which is a special kind of audio DVD. DVD audio sounds amazing for lute, but most people want high quality MP3s. Basically, there are just two many formats, but almost anything plays on a computer or recent DVD player, so CD players are becoming rarer. When I make CDs, I either record at 44.1/24 OR 88.2/24. 88.2 divides perfectly to make a CD. Nowadays, it makes little sense not to use 48 or 96, so you can use it with video, or just enjoy the extra highs. However, for lute, the microphones, converters and preamps are more important than the sampling. Most lute recordings just do not have enough gain, they have too much inherent noise, or there is a kind of squawk to the high notes caused by the poor capture of transient harmonics. Recently, lower priced electronics have overcome most of these hurdles, although the microphones, for example a pair of sennheiser MKH 20's, remains somewhat expensive. I say somewhat because when recording a full orchestra a pair of $1500 mics is not that much if you need 32 of them. A pair of MKH20s and a Fireface 400 will make a great lute recording, and you can also use a high end preamp like the Audio Upgrades High Speed mic preamp (very good for early music). A lot of my colleagues use Great River preamps but I prefer other ones for early music. There are a lot of great preamp designs, look for a noise figure of ein 129.5. One thing to remember: I often have people to try out gear. We put up a selection of mics, and listen blind. Different people prefer different gear. Till you listen yourself, you are just guessing. Take the time to try out everything on a short list. For budget mics try the studio projects b1 or C4, modded oktava omnis or Elation KMs if you can find them. However if recording hiss bugs you, then you have to spend a bit more.. dt Warmest thanks, David, for all the detailed explanations. Much appreciated by the dummy I am! In this case, you will want 48/24 unless you wish to make a CD recording, for that you need 44.1/24. Does this mean that one can only burn this type of file to an audio CD? Thanks again! Dennis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
Thanks, David, for all the further information. Very helpful! For $100 or less you can get a sound card for a laptop or PC that has exceptional sound. Do you have any specific recommendations? Dennis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
Hi David, I thought that one benefits in high resolution recording because there is some room left for mastering like reverb etc...so that we don't loose quality in the end. Obviously this is more important when we deal with rock or pop music where we have lots of effects involved, but still unless one records just the dry signal I think it's better to have some more bits in the beginning don't you? Do correct me if I am wrong. Best Jaroslaw __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 2949 (20080315) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
Absolutely, yes, it is better to have more bits. I'm just saying the primary advantage, one of many, for the 24 bits is the depth of the sound and the easy volume changes. When presented with the long list of choices, unless disk space is really an issue, you are looking at 44/24 for CD, 48/24 everything else including MP3, MP4 output. You can certainly use 44.1 for MP3 if your software/reverb package is set up for it--and some are optimized for it. And you can experiment with 88.2/24, 96/24 if you wish! Or 192/24. Most effects are not optimized for higher sampling sampling rates, but are optimized for higher bit depths. The main issue with lute recordings is the gain and the mic/converter sound. And how to make an edit. On the lute, you can basically edit on every note. And some people do! The workflow is important--don't start in 48 and convert to 44.1 for CD, or start in 44.1 and convert to 48 for video. Don't put dither on top of dither (the most common mistake). I mainly use mics for EQ so that is less of a consideration, but some people use eq a lot. I think most ppl use too much compression and it makes the sound worse-- Use manual compression with crossfades and 24 bit gain! That is the real secret. Most recordings I make really have either minimal or zero effects processing--but if something needs fixing, I want to have that option. And it's all in 24 bit for the gain resolution issues. And if recording at home, you will need some kind of effects to take the edge off. So here you have to be practical and decide if it sounds better or just looks better. And when auditioning gear you have to have a friend set it up, so you don't know what is what :) Never record in less than 24 bits, for whatever reason you like! You can always trim the extra bits, but not the other way. Mainly, recordings invariably have One Big Mistake. For example you have a really fine firewire interface, Canare Starquad or Mogami cable, quiet studio, great lute. excellent performance, and a budget mic that the salesperson strongly recommended. Sennheiser shock mounts. But the mic was made in China for $7, the Megastore bought it for $45 and it sold for $200. And the recording sounded bright and hissy... And just try to get someone to part with their $7 mic. Or you have a nice mic and a ten dollar cable, and the recording has a buzz on it or a local radio station. Or you have the most expensive equipment in the world and the phase is reversed. Or the mic is too close and there is a lot of bass boom finger noise. Hey it is really hard to make a good lute recording, why else would they have a thousand edits in them? People rarely use 88.2 even though it is better for CD mastering. (assuming the converters are optimized properly--not always the case!) Higher sampling rates, these can sound better if handled correctly, but can easily sound worse. But, absolutely, yes, it is better to have more bits. And in video, always use high definition, even if the end result is youtube. I suspect in a few years you will be able to get a really good flash recorder for under $100---and they really are very cool. dt At 08:42 AM 3/15/2008, you wrote: Hi David, I thought that one benefits in high resolution recording because there is some room left for mastering like reverb etc...so that we don't loose quality in the end. Obviously this is more important when we deal with rock or pop music where we have lots of effects involved, but still unless one records just the dry signal I think it's better to have some more bits in the beginning don't you? Do correct me if I am wrong. Best Jaroslaw __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 2949 (20080315) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
I wish I could understand any of this.. P : ) On 15/03/2008, David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Absolutely, yes, it is better to have more bits. I'm just saying the primary advantage, one of many, for the 24 bits is the depth of the sound and the easy volume changes. When presented with the long list of choices, unless disk space is really an issue, you are looking at 44/24 for CD, 48/24 everything else including MP3, MP4 output. You can certainly use 44.1 for MP3 if your software/reverb package is set up for it--and some are optimized for it. And you can experiment with 88.2/24, 96/24 if you wish! Or 192/24. Most effects are not optimized for higher sampling sampling rates, but are optimized for higher bit depths. The main issue with lute recordings is the gain and the mic/converter sound. And how to make an edit. On the lute, you can basically edit on every note. And some people do! The workflow is important--don't start in 48 and convert to 44.1 for CD, or start in 44.1 and convert to 48 for video. Don't put dither on top of dither (the most common mistake). I mainly use mics for EQ so that is less of a consideration, but some people use eq a lot. I think most ppl use too much compression and it makes the sound worse-- Use manual compression with crossfades and 24 bit gain! That is the real secret. Most recordings I make really have either minimal or zero effects processing--but if something needs fixing, I want to have that option. And it's all in 24 bit for the gain resolution issues. And if recording at home, you will need some kind of effects to take the edge off. So here you have to be practical and decide if it sounds better or just looks better. And when auditioning gear you have to have a friend set it up, so you don't know what is what :) Never record in less than 24 bits, for whatever reason you like! You can always trim the extra bits, but not the other way. Mainly, recordings invariably have One Big Mistake. For example you have a really fine firewire interface, Canare Starquad or Mogami cable, quiet studio, great lute. excellent performance, and a budget mic that the salesperson strongly recommended. Sennheiser shock mounts. But the mic was made in China for $7, the Megastore bought it for $45 and it sold for $200. And the recording sounded bright and hissy... And just try to get someone to part with their $7 mic. Or you have a nice mic and a ten dollar cable, and the recording has a buzz on it or a local radio station. Or you have the most expensive equipment in the world and the phase is reversed. Or the mic is too close and there is a lot of bass boom finger noise. Hey it is really hard to make a good lute recording, why else would they have a thousand edits in them? People rarely use 88.2 even though it is better for CD mastering. (assuming the converters are optimized properly--not always the case!) Higher sampling rates, these can sound better if handled correctly, but can easily sound worse. But, absolutely, yes, it is better to have more bits. And in video, always use high definition, even if the end result is youtube. I suspect in a few years you will be able to get a really good flash recorder for under $100---and they really are very cool. dt At 08:42 AM 3/15/2008, you wrote: Hi David, I thought that one benefits in high resolution recording because there is some room left for mastering like reverb etc...so that we don't loose quality in the end. Obviously this is more important when we deal with rock or pop music where we have lots of effects involved, but still unless one records just the dry signal I think it's better to have some more bits in the beginning don't you? Do correct me if I am wrong. Best Jaroslaw __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 2949 (20080315) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Peter Martin Belle Serre La Caulie 81100 Castres France tel: 0033 5 63 35 68 46 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: www.silvius.co.uk http://absolute81.blogspot.com/ www.myspace.com/sambuca999 www.myspace.com/chuckerbutty --
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
Sorry... When you buy a flash audio recorder--a great teaching/learning tool-- you have to decide in the settings how much resolution to use. There's lots of settings, and the manufacturers are not helpful. The bits is like (but not exactly like) the number of megapixels on a camera, more megapixels means you can enlarge the photo more, or have more detail. When you listen to a CD you are hearing 16 bits of resolution, that is like say a two megapixel camera in terms of history and quality. If you were to try to make the volume louder, so that it would be at internet volume, and you had a very soft source (like a lute or a clavichord) you might start to notice the sound break up if the recording has not enough detail, or bits. Leanardo da Vinci said let the mirror be your master. So it is kind of a good idea, either with a real or digital mirror, to take that awful jump towards self reflection once in a while. Like a camera, the increase in the sensor megapixels can sometimes create more noise. So there is a point of diminishing returns. Also, if you are not making a poster but a postcard (as in MP3s or youtube), you don't need to waste the storage space with huge file, but some extra resolution will be helpful. I will be offering starting in the fall classes in home recording of early music for people who are interested in the gory details, but for most players it is nice to have a way to listen to their playing or record lessons, concerts, events, etc. And the new silent Flash recorders, such as the Fostex FR2LE or the Zoom and Korg versions, are excellent for this purpose. dt t 02:16 PM 3/15/2008, you wrote: I wish I could understand any of this.. P : ) On 15/03/2008, David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Absolutely, yes, it is better to have more bits. I'm just saying the primary advantage, one of many, for the 24 bits is the depth of the sound and the easy volume changes. When presented with the long list of choices, unless disk space is really an issue, you are looking at 44/24 for CD, 48/24 everything else including MP3, MP4 output. You can certainly use 44.1 for MP3 if your software/reverb package is set up for it--and some are optimized for it. And you can experiment with 88.2/24, 96/24 if you wish! Or 192/24. Most effects are not optimized for higher sampling sampling rates, but are optimized for higher bit depths. The main issue with lute recordings is the gain and the mic/converter sound. And how to make an edit. On the lute, you can basically edit on every note. And some people do! The workflow is important--don't start in 48 and convert to 44.1 for CD, or start in 44.1 and convert to 48 for video. Don't put dither on top of dither (the most common mistake). I mainly use mics for EQ so that is less of a consideration, but some people use eq a lot. I think most ppl use too much compression and it makes the sound worse-- Use manual compression with crossfades and 24 bit gain! That is the real secret. Most recordings I make really have either minimal or zero effects processing--but if something needs fixing, I want to have that option. And it's all in 24 bit for the gain resolution issues. And if recording at home, you will need some kind of effects to take the edge off. So here you have to be practical and decide if it sounds better or just looks better. And when auditioning gear you have to have a friend set it up, so you don't know what is what :) Never record in less than 24 bits, for whatever reason you like! You can always trim the extra bits, but not the other way. Mainly, recordings invariably have One Big Mistake. For example you have a really fine firewire interface, Canare Starquad or Mogami cable, quiet studio, great lute. excellent performance, and a budget mic that the salesperson strongly recommended. Sennheiser shock mounts. But the mic was made in China for $7, the Megastore bought it for $45 and it sold for $200. And the recording sounded bright and hissy... And just try to get someone to part with their $7 mic. Or you have a nice mic and a ten dollar cable, and the recording has a buzz on it or a local radio station. Or you have the most expensive equipment in the world and the phase is reversed. Or the mic is too close and there is a lot of bass boom finger noise. Hey it is really hard to make a good lute recording, why else would they have a thousand edits in them? People rarely use 88.2 even though it is better for CD mastering. (assuming the converters are optimized properly--not always the case!) Higher sampling rates, these can sound better if handled correctly, but can easily sound worse. But, absolutely, yes, it is better to have more bits. And in video, always use high definition, even if the end result is youtube. I suspect in a few years you will be able to get a really good flash
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
Hi folks, Martin Shepherd wrote: here are now so many of us with the Zoom H2 we should share our experiences with this machine. Which settings did you use? I just got mine and have been playing around with it instead of working. I'm rather impressed with the quality of the out-of-the-box settings. But there are so many settings that I'm wondering which to use for WAV recordings: WAV44.1kHz/16bit WAV44.1kHz/24bit WAV48kHz/16bit WAV48kHz/24bit WAV96kHz/16bit WAV96kHz/24bit What do you guys suggest for recording a single instrument or a small group of two or three? What are exactly the specific effets of bit rate and quantization? Thanks, Dennis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
The simple answer is that it depends on what you will do with the recording. All converters are tweaked a bit to favor a particular notch. However, unless you will be using the zoom professionally, your concerns will be the final format. In this case, you will want 48/24 unless you wish to make a CD recording, for that you need 44.1/24. However, I don't think the zoom is suitable for CD recording. If you wish to experiment with the extended frequency response, you then double the 48 to get 96/24. However, it is unlikely that your microphones will generate anything but harshness at this rate, and you may introduce artifacts when you downsample for MP3s (or the better MP4). Only a very few and very expensive mics generate smooth, usefull upper partials when recording early music due to the complexity of the harmonics. Another way to look at it is that moving the microphone a few inches will affect the sound more than doubling the sampling rate. Now the 24 bits is very usefull because one bit is roughly worth 6 db of sound. That means when you normalize the audio for web streaming, you get free gain. It's like zooming (pardon the pun) on a really high quality digital photo. If you accidentally record too low, as in a live recording, or if you mics cannot produce enough gain, you will need to boost the level digitally. If you want true line level, then you must look to the Fireface 400. That box has enough gain to record the lute or even a clavichord at line level. If you have recently purchased your zoom I would recommend you compare it to the Fostex FR2 LE. The converters and mike preamps are outstanding, and though not as quiet as items costing thousands of dollars, they are extraordinary. It also has a design that records early music well. However it works best with good microphones--as do all recorders. After you have captured your wave file you will want an audio editor that can go directly from 24 bit to MP3 or MP4. Here, Samplitude and Sequoia are the best choices, but there are less expensive and free options as well. I even use virtual dub with the lame mp3 encoder for a free solution, and the Nero codec is very good as well. You will have to decide whether to apply noise shaping to the final product. Here I recommend that you do not apply noise shaping unless you have the POWR3 conversions as the process simply adds more noise to the final product. A minimum bitrate of 48/260 for MP3 is recommended, and 320 is even better, MP4 is better still. Never set your workflow to convert 44.1 to 48, or vice versa. It degrades the sound. If you are using your recorder for a video track for youtube, you must set it to 48/24 or the video software will resample it. dt t 12:56 PM 3/14/2008, you wrote: Hi folks, Martin Shepherd wrote: here are now so many of us with the Zoom H2 we should share our experiences with this machine. Which settings did you use? I just got mine and have been playing around with it instead of working. I'm rather impressed with the quality of the out-of-the-box settings. But there are so many settings that I'm wondering which to use for WAV recordings: WAV44.1kHz/16bit WAV44.1kHz/24bit WAV48kHz/16bit WAV48kHz/24bit WAV96kHz/16bit WAV96kHz/24bit What do you guys suggest for recording a single instrument or a small group of two or three? What are exactly the specific effets of bit rate and quantization? Thanks, Dennis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings and esnips
hello, seems to me, that esnips solved the problem. my folder lautenklang works again in firefox. http://www.esnips.com/web/lautenklang greetings wolfgang To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
On Mar 3, 2008, at 5:16 AM, Rob MacKillop wrote: ...Gesture is important in all music, be it blues, jazz, or French Baroque, and I feel that composers did not notate it simply because it was hard to capture on paper without performers making it sound too automated, Much like swing in jazz. We have a big problem here. Ever listened to classical musicians playing jazz? The notes might be right, but the feel is different from a 'true' jazzer, someone who has grown up with the whole sound world. But students of jazz can listen to recordings, go to gigs, have lessons with these players. We can't. And when it comes to something as subtle as dotting in French baroque, we naturally find it very difficult, and don't necessarily know when we have got it 'right'. Jazz musicians have their own issues with period performance practice when they play be-bop. Even with all the recordings available, and the influence of bandleaders and soloists from back in the day, there is still plenty of disagreement on how be-bop should be played. So we have to be practical. Experiment. Play what we feel is right. Let's not forget Lully and his mace. I think we can do whatever we like between the pulses, but the pulses themselves have to be rock solid. Baroque music is supposed to reflect the architecture of the day. Look at Versailles: what does it look like on the outside? what does it look like on the inside? DR [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
Thank you, Matthias, for that recording and the opportunity to ask a question I have been wanting to ask for a long time. In French baroque music are two successive 1/8 notes always played like a dotted 1/8 note and a 1/16 note, or perhaps as the 1/4 note and an 1/8 note of a triplet? If so, why is a dotted eighth note followed by a 1/16 note sometimes written? Matthias' interpretation is the way I originally tried the Allemande but then decided against it, in part because I found it a little easier to play with straight 1/8 notes and in part because the very first measure has a dotted 1/8 note followed by a 1/16 note, and I assumed that two successive 1/8 notes were not to be played the same way. I have to admit that Matthias' interpretation sounds much better to me and much more French, whereas playing straight 1/8 notes sounds more German to me (though perhaps I am just imagining things). I would appreciate any light anyone can throw on the subject. For those of us who don't have (and who have never had) teachers, this is a great way to learn. My thanks again to Matthias for taking the time to teach me something. I am only too happy to learn. Best wishes, Stephen Arndt - Original Message - From: Mathias Rösel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: baroque Lutelist baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 9:06 AM Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings After a short discussion with Stephen Arndt and with his consent, here's a video of the allemande and following courante by Dubut (Barbe ms. p. 192f): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxTn0CyQP0E Sound quality is terrible, I know, but rhythm and ornaments will, or so I hope, distinctly come through. Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
VERY nice, Mathias. Beautiful tone, the bass especially. Rob -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
F A N T A S T I C ! you and Valerie are my favorite ! respect -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
Andrew Gibbs wrote: I've been thinking about getting a Zoom H2 - does anyone know how they work with Macs? Thanks Andrew The manual says PC and Mac supported. There is a operating system update to version 1.20 at the Zoom site. The major update is for the USB card reader support under Mac OS X v10.5 (Leopard). You might need that update. Here's the link to the Zoom update page: http://www.zoom.co.jp/english/download/software/h2.php The product concept states: provide brilliant stereo recording in an easy-to-use, ultra-portable device. I think they succeeded very well. Best Regards, The Other Stephen Stubbs. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
Martin Shepherd wrote: Dear Valéry, Excellent! Good to see you on this list again - there are now so many of us with the Zoom H2 we should share our experiences with this machine. Which settings did you use? What was the recording distance? Wonderful to hear you play with the better sound quality than on Youtube. Best wishes, Martin Valéry Sauvage wrote: Hello, Back on this list... I'd like to present some recordings I made with my brand new zoom h2... (nice machine !) http://pagesperso-orange.fr/luthval/musiques/packington.mp3 http://pagesperso-orange.fr/luthval/musiques/what-if-a-day.mp3 Hello All, Finally got out of the apartment to do some vocal recording with the Zoom H2 at my church's sanctuary. I need some more singing practice, but it shouldn't prove too painful to listen to my version of Annabel Lee (poem by Edgar Allen Poe in 1849, so I don't think the copyright issues of the USA are going to be a problem) set to an adapted tune of Scarborough Fair (English traditional, in which I had to repeat the last two phrases to match up with the usual 6 line stanzas of Annabel Lee.) There were some other adjustments that had to be made to get these 2 pieces working together, but overall it's 95% or more the straight Annabel Lee. The recording was done under the highest point of the sanctuary (15 feet to 20 feet), the Zoom H2 inserted into a mic stand (the H2 comes with the screw on attachment) at arm's distance from me (so I could turn on and off the Zoom H2 without moving-- as someone else has pointed out for a convenient recording distance) using the Automatic Gain Control (Martin, I'm going to have to rethink using that setting, as it smooths out any dynamic range in the music one might be striving for), in CD format (WAV, 44.1kHz, 16bit). This is a vocal only recording. I'm a lute hobbyist. The demands of real-life are bad and getting worse. I haven't practiced my lute since early Spring of 2007. I was wondering if someone would consider composing a lute accompaniment for my vocal. I'd like to learn that accompaniment, so it will need to be for a *very* beginning student. I considered strumming chords on the lute for the accompaniment, but somehow that doesn't seem faithful to the lute. The last restriction (as if there weren't enough already!) is that I'm on dial-up internet without a web site to put the WAV file. So I would need to send it to someone's existing site if more than one person volunteers to help me out. Respectfully, The Other Stephen Stubbs To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
Fantastic Valery ! I can say , you are one of the best luthistes i ever heard ! probably the best at the moment -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
Valéry, I would like to add my voice to those who have already praised your work. I have long enjoyed your flawless performances on YouTube, and I am amazed that you get such a warm, mellow tone from synthetics. Great work! I hope that you are back on the baroque list as well. Best regards, Stephen Arndt - Original Message - From: Valéry Sauvage [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 12:26 AM Subject: [LUTE] Amateur recordings Hello, Back on this list... I'd like to present some recordings I made with my brand new zoom h2... (nice machine !) http://pagesperso-orange.fr/luthval/musiques/packington.mp3 http://pagesperso-orange.fr/luthval/musiques/what-if-a-day.mp3 For those watching my videos on Youtube, now I'll record again with this sound quality (as the existing ones are very poor sound recorded I'm afraid... So I'll delete the old ones soon... Valéry ;-) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
I agree Stephan Valery, i hope you''ll decide giving concert in major venues : you desrve it, not to mention all concert goers longing for a true musician! Igor -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
Thanks Stephan and Igor for your messages. I want to say that I know my limits and I'm not playing in the yard of the great. I'm just an amateur, loving this instrument and willing to share this passion. (and that's enough for me...) ;-) Valéry - Original Message - From: igor . [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stephen Arndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Valéry Sauvage [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 6:28 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings I agree Stephan Valery, i hope you''ll decide giving concert in major venues : you desrve it, not to mention all concert goers longing for a true musician! Igor -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
Dear Valéry, Excellent! Good to see you on this list again - there are now so many of us with the Zoom H2 we should share our experiences with this machine. Which settings did you use? What was the recording distance? Wonderful to hear you play with the better sound quality than on Youtube. Best wishes, Martin Valéry Sauvage wrote: Hello, Back on this list... I'd like to present some recordings I made with my brand new zoom h2... (nice machine !) http://pagesperso-orange.fr/luthval/musiques/packington.mp3 http://pagesperso-orange.fr/luthval/musiques/what-if-a-day.mp3 For those watching my videos on Youtube, now I'll record again with this sound quality (as the existing ones are very poor sound recorded I'm afraid... So I'll delete the old ones soon... Valéry ;-) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
moin valery, very good playing and recording! it seems to me, that we have now a little zoom H2 group here. the quality of the recorded lute sound is amazingly. greetings wolfgang p.s. i used the zoom h2 for our players meeting in hamburg last weekend. in 120° option i recorded voices, lutes, recorders and a krummhorn, very authentic sound! Original-Nachricht Datum: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:26:33 +0100 Von: Valéry Sauvage [EMAIL PROTECTED] An: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Betreff: [LUTE] Amateur recordings Hello, Back on this list... I'd like to present some recordings I made with my brand new zoom h2... (nice machine !) http://pagesperso-orange.fr/luthval/musiques/packington.mp3 http://pagesperso-orange.fr/luthval/musiques/what-if-a-day.mp3 For those watching my videos on Youtube, now I'll record again with this sound quality (as the existing ones are very poor sound recorded I'm afraid... So I'll delete the old ones soon... Valéry ;-) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
Beautiful sound, Valéry! What exactly are you using? On Feb 29, 2008, at 9:26 AM, Valéry Sauvage wrote: Hello, Back on this list... I'd like to present some recordings I made with my brand new zoom h2... (nice machine !) http://pagesperso-orange.fr/luthval/musiques/packington.mp3 http://pagesperso-orange.fr/luthval/musiques/what-if-a-day.mp3 For those watching my videos on Youtube, now I'll record again with this sound quality (as the existing ones are very poor sound recorded I'm afraid... So I'll delete the old ones soon... Valéry ;-) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
http://www.samsontech.com/products/productpage.cfm?prodID=1916 On Feb 29, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Martin Shepherd wrote: Dear Valéry, Excellent! Good to see you on this list again - there are now so many of us with the Zoom H2 we should share our experiences with this machine. Which settings did you use? What was the recording distance? Wonderful to hear you play with the better sound quality than on Youtube. Best wishes, Martin Valéry Sauvage wrote: Hello, Back on this list... I'd like to present some recordings I made with my brand new zoom h2... (nice machine !) http://pagesperso-orange.fr/luthval/musiques/packington.mp3 http://pagesperso-orange.fr/luthval/musiques/what-if-a-day.mp3 For those watching my videos on Youtube, now I'll record again with this sound quality (as the existing ones are very poor sound recorded I'm afraid... So I'll delete the old ones soon... Valéry ;-) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
I've been thinking about getting a Zoom H2 - does anyone know how they work with Macs? Thanks Andrew On 29 Feb 2008, at 09:19, wolfgang wiehe wrote: moin valery, very good playing and recording! it seems to me, that we have now a little zoom H2 group here. the quality of the recorded lute sound is amazingly. greetings wolfgang p.s. i used the zoom h2 for our players meeting in hamburg last weekend. in 120° option i recorded voices, lutes, recorders and a krummhorn, very authentic sound! To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
Hi, I use some standart settings on the h2, as I receive it yesterday at 3pm and recorded at 4... So front mic, stereo, mic level at H, wave format, about arm lenght distance (to switch on and off the machine without having to move from the chair...) I'll try some other settings when I read the notice... ;-) To answer Doc's questione : lute stringed with KF and copper Kurschner for the basses (very used ones...) Val To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
This article seems the best review I have seen, with clear explanations http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/digitalmedia/2007/09/13/ review-zoom-h2-surround-recorder.html?page=1 This one has recorded examples http://www.audiotranskription.de/english/interviews-en/zoom-h2/zoom- h2.html http://rontech.blogspot.com/2007/07/first-real-zoom-h2-review-on- internet.html http://www.transom.org/tools/recording_interviewing/200711_zoom_h2/ Less interesting http://www.wingfieldaudio.com/zoom-h2-review.html http://www.bradlinder.net/2007/08/zoom-h2-review-roundup-cure-for- common.html http://www.2090.org/zoom/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=9549 Anthony Le 29 fevr. 08 =E0 10:17, Doc Rossi a ecrit : http://www.samsontech.com/products/productpage.cfm?prodID=1916 On Feb 29, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Martin Shepherd wrote: Dear Valery, Excellent! Good to see you on this list again - there are now so many of us with the Zoom H2 we should share our experiences with this machine. Which settings did you use? What was the recording distance? Wonderful to hear you play with the better sound quality than on Youtube. Best wishes, Martin Valery Sauvage wrote: Hello, Back on this list... I'd like to present some recordings I made with my brand new zoom h2... (nice machine !) http://pagesperso-orange.fr/luthval/musiques/packington.mp3 http://pagesperso-orange.fr/luthval/musiques/what-if-a-day.mp3 For those watching my videos on Youtube, now I'll record again with this sound quality (as the existing ones are very poor sound recorded I'm afraid... So I'll delete the old ones soon... Valery ;-) To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
I bought mine in a german online store for 199€ all inclusive. www.musik-produktiv.com Greetings wolfgang -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: dc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Februar 2008 12:43 An: Lute Net Betreff: [LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings Martin Shepherd écrit: there are now so many of us with the Zoom H2 we should share our experiences with this machine. I'm thinking of getting one also. Where are the best buys in Europe? Thanks, Dennis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings
I bought mine in a swiss online store for 299 swiss francs (http://shop.musix.ch/ecommerce/product_info.php/manufacturers_id/1075/produ cts_id/119531) Most likely it will be cheaper in the US Best wishes Thomas I bought mine in a german online store for 199⬠all inclusive. www.musik-produktiv.com Greetings wolfgang -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: dc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Februar 2008 12:43 An: Lute Net Betreff: [LUTE] Re: Amateur recordings Martin Shepherd écrit: there are now so many of us with the Zoom H2 we should share our experiences with this machine. I'm thinking of getting one also. Where are the best buys in Europe? Thanks, Dennis To get on or off this list see list information at [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html References 1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
