I'm really sorry if all this recording-reverb discussion is
boring some
of you - it usually bores me, so I apologise. Hopefully it will
only
last another couple of days, but I have learned a lot in the last
24
hours.
No, no- you are doing a hero's work for all of us here- ("Ein
Heldenleben?") Trying to keep them straight in my head here ("Abandon
all hope, ye who enter...") my preference is for all the plain ones, I
think in this order:
1. Original mp3 2 metres distance - no reverb added & Original wav
file
2. Original mp3 - 2 feet distance to mic - no reverb added
Number 3 is pretty good, but still something seems to be missing at the
expense of even the most subtle enhancement...
3. Nero (Batov settings)
Just to show the difference between how we are doing things now- both
the performing and the recording- and one session in the past, here is
an account of a recording session done 54 years ago; admittedly by the
greatest keyboard artist in any genre who has ever lived (Go ahead,
shoot me!)
"In 1954, Art Tatum began recording a series of performances.... This
series included 121 piano solos, all of which were committed to tape
without rehearsal or preamble or reference to stopwatch; Tatum simply
sat at the keyboard, the machines were switched on and the marathon
began..."
No editing, lots of improv of a level as to be more like spontaneous
"intabulating"/re-composing of items ranging from "Tea for Two" to
"Humoresque". Imagine Albert de Rippe spontaneously, on the spot,
doing his "O Passi Sparsi" (the LONG one!).
--
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
