Dear all Thank you for your feedback, it is helpfull. Here are replies on some of your thouhgts.
Stewart: > In the Dowland Pavan I can hear you breathing. I have no problem with that. > my preference is to aim for a softer, warmer, less brittle sound. Mine too. Anthony: >> my preference is to aim for a softer, warmer, less brittle sound. >Strangely the Galliarde of Clarkes does not have that problem so << Closer micing helped in that respect, but I did lose the room. Ed: > Actually, my first CD had no editing at all, Brave! Chris: >> (Strange thing: on one of the tracks that I know has absolutely no edits in it, there's what sounds to me like the most obvious digital piecing together << On my Japanese cd there's what sounds like a digital click on the opening of a song, but it's a drop of water falling in the back of the church. I did the editing on that cd, and now I cannot play that song without hearing this click. Ed: >> lack of single note edits is a more honest recording, and it gives that edge of a moment in time of performance. But cleaning it up with edits does make a more presentable product. << Indeed, there are different cds with different aims. Sometimes you want to make the most presentable product. Also, the process gets a life of its own with a good sound engineer/producer bringing in his wishes. He will put his stamp on his end of the production, and that usually means more editing than I want. He has to be proud of his part of the production, and making a cd with a clean sound is his job. David Tayler: Thank you for your very usefull summary of budget lute recording summary! I'll take note. >> why a lute CD could not be mistake free given several takes, after all it it is possible to play continuo for four hour opera mistake free << I think there is a huge difference between playing continuo for one hour and playing music like Terzi's duets (or equally demanding solo music) for one hour. In the continuo you can avoid mistakes by choosing the easy option, in Terzi there's no place to hide. What is demanding in playing continuo in a recording is doing it more or less the same way every take. I'm expecting a new cd of mine to be released in two weeks time, and I kind of dread what the editing has done to my improvisations in the continuo of one particular song. It had five (or was it seven?) verses, and I did something different each time, but didn't keep track well enough of what I did where. Every new take I had to sort of play the same in each verse, obviously, but if I had written it out it would have lost its spontaneity. Here the editing will be aimed at making the singer sound best, so there might be some odd, sudden leaps in my continuo ... Edo-san: Yes. I liked your fantasia, and the underwear added a certain 'je ne sais quoi' to it. ;-) >> Your ears are much more finely tuned than my old ears << What I've learned from the sound engineer helping me out as a novice producer is that our ears (yours as well as mine) are very good, we only need pointing to what we are listening for. That's why this discussion is helpfull, it's pointing me (and others, I hope) to what I should be listening to. >> Your Terzi sounds great from what I heard. << Thanks, I'm pleased with it too, especially track 9. The sound engineer cum producer was Bert de Wolf, they don't come better than he. Now that is a true artist. I think it was a trio-cd, then. Pat, from Brooklyn: >> I have been enjoying this thread very much and have learned a lot about recording. << Me too, on both counts. David - back to the studio this morning, it's another free day :-) **************************** 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
