LSOLive Recording Technique Explained

[tailspn]

An interesting article on NativeDSD by Neil Hutchinson of Classic Sound Ltd, detailing the recording techniques of their recent LSOLive Verdi Requiem recording.

 

http://blog.nativedsd.com/recording-verdi-requiem-london-symphony-orchestra/

[Fitzcaraldo215]

19 hours ago, tailspn said:

An interesting article on NativeDSD by Neil Hutchinson of Classic Sound Ltd, detailing the recording techniques of their recent LSOLive Verdi Requiem recording.

 

http://blog.nativedsd.com/recording-verdi-requiem-london-symphony-orchestra/

Tom - thanks for this.  You and I had discussed older LSO Live recordings some time in the past, and neither of us was impressed then compared to many other labels.  I will admit, based on those discussions, I have avoided buying LSO Live recordings for some time.  But, I am encouraged by this piece to give them another try.  They may have upped their game from what it once was.  Maybe worth a new listen.

[sphinxsix]

I've never been impressed with LSO Live sound quality either.

Is it better nowadays.?

[crenca]

I have to concur with the general sentiment - I really like some of their performances though the SQ of the recording is only at best average - don't recall hearing a "bad" SQ recording however (not that I have listened to them all of course).

 

I am glad to see they are recording 128 (DSDx2) as well...heck I will no doubt just pick this one up (or rather download it)

[richard kimber]

I also wasn't too impressed with the SQ , and I stopped buying them when they appointed Gergiev, who doesn't impress me either.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

42 minutes ago, richard kimber said:

I also wasn't too impressed with the SQ , and I stopped buying them when they appointed Gergiev, who doesn't impress me either.

I agree about Gergiev, who for me is one of the most overrated conductors of all time.  Also, the Barbican venue was a huge problem for both audiences and recordings.  In other words, the sound might not all have been the fault of the Classic Sound team.  And, their current approach seems state of the art technically.

 

But, things may be looking up.  It is a very fine orchestra, and Sir Simon Rattle may be a welcome breath of fresh air as Music Director in a few years, as is the commitment he wangled to can the Barbican in favor of a newly built hall. 

[tailspn]

Well, ya shamed me into it. I still had the original mch dsdiff file on my SSD working drive that I made the dsf tracks for NativeDSD, so I played it. It has much more presence and dynamic range than the older LSO Live's, but still a more distant perspective that I'd have chosen. Perspective is all personal taste, and is determined by microphone choice and placement position. Neil detailed in his piece for NativeDSD their choices. This is a fine sounding multichannel recording, particularly for a work of this scale, it not a conductor's position perspective.

 

On the Gergiev front, one of the most thrilling concerts I've had the pleasure of attending was this last January. We were recording the Budapest Festival Orchestra in Budapest's Music Palace (MUPA). Normally we rent the hall for full days, but on Monday January 30, MUPA double booked it. The BFO Beethoven sessions were over at 3PM, and they sold the late afternoon and evening to the Mariinsky O

 

The concert was almost three hours in length, concluding with a powerfully played Rimsky-Korsakov: Scheherazade. After the typical European rhythmic applause, Gergiev called for an encore, unheard of in the US. It was no triet little piece, but the full fourth movement of the Stravinsky Firebird!

 

I may not like his politics, but the man and orchestra earned my respect that night.

 

.

[gmgraves]

The Main thing that I have always had against Decca recordings, is their over reliance on the "Decca tree" mike deployment. They have been using it (in one form or another) since the 1950's. It was originally contrived to give a decent mono mix during the "dual inventory" days before the compatible stereo disc was devised. I always thought that it gave a confused soundstage. Looking at the orchestra layout and the venue's stage, I believe that they could have solved the problem of early, short reverb times with a single point stereo mike used in an MS configuration with the bottom mike set to figure-of-eight pick-up perpendicular to the conductor's podium, and the top mike set to cardioid, facing the ensemble, and fairly close to the stage. The MS math will take care of the close reflections and audience noise and the spread of the pickup can be controlled with the level and pan pots on the M-S mix. For some reasons, Decca seems determined to use that tree configuration come hell or high water. Of course, every recording engineer has his own Ideas about how a performance should be miked, but the old adage "too many mikes ruin the recording" is certainly applicable in this case. My opinion, you understand.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphone_practice#/media/File%3AMS_stereo.svg

[tailspn]

I can not speak for Classic Sound Ltd (BTW, are they the rebirth of the old Decca house engineering team as Polyhymnia is the old Philips recording team?), but I'd suggest that they use the Decca Tree mic array as part of a ITU alignment for an original surround recording, later mixing and balancing it for stereo.

 

For stereo only, the MS alignment is a good candidate for intensity stereo pickup. Many orchestra recording engineers do use both a ITU surround alignment (Decca Tree front) and additionally a separate MS or XY/ORTF for stereo, plus support mics.  Channel Classics has used that dual separate alignments for years for simultaneous separate surround and stereo recordings.

[miguelito]

On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 5:44 PM, tailspn said:

An interesting article on NativeDSD by Neil Hutchinson of Classic Sound Ltd, detailing the recording techniques of their recent LSOLive Verdi Requiem recording.

 

http://blog.nativedsd.com/recording-verdi-requiem-london-symphony-orchestra/

Very cool. I would've liked more detail on post-processing, although I would infer that it is DSD->PCM->DSD from the comment on using a digital filter to remove noise. My understanding is many purists mix in analog consoles (Blue Coast for example), effectively doing DSD->analog mixing->DSD.

[semente]

14 hours ago, tailspn said:

Well, ya shamed me into it. I still had the original mch dsdiff file on my SSD working drive that I made the dsf tracks for NativeDSD, so I played it. It has much more presence and dynamic range than the older LSO Live's, but still a more distant perspective that I'd have chosen. Perspective is all personal taste, and is determined by microphone choice and placement position. Neil detailed in his piece for NativeDSD their choices. This is a fine sounding multichannel recording, particularly for a work of this scale, it not a conductor's position perspective.

 

I agree that it's very much a matter of personal taste.

Since I am not a maestro I much prefer a more distant perspective that recreates what I would listen from a seat in the audience, perhaps some 8 to 12 rows down from the stage.

 

Based in your comments I may give this recording a listen.

 

Cheers,

R

[Norton]

I have lots of LSOlive recordings, but agree that they have tended in the past to have a distant perspective and can come across as uninvolving and somewhat sterile sounding.  The Gergiev Mahler cycle doesn't do a lot for me compared to Solti on RBCD or LP for example.

 

I think they are improving though, I've particularly enjoyed the Nielsen symphonies and Mendelssohn 5 among more recent releases ( a bonus of both being the  .dff and PCM files bundled with the already very reasonably priced SACDs).

 

I can't find the link, but I thought there was a connection between the recording  teams for LSO and Mariinsky labels -  and I certainly rate the latter. For example,  to my ears the Mariinsky Nutcracker/Tchaikovsky 4 ranks among the very best recordings I've heard on any format.  

[tailspn]

You're correct Norton; up to just a year or so ago James Mallison and Classic Sound were the producer and recording company for both the Mariinsky and LSO Live series. The Mariinsky started with Mallison and Soundmirror for the first 4-5 releases, then Mallison switched to Classic Sound. About two years ago Mariinsky went in house for engineering and IIRC, producing. LSO Live has been recorded by Classic Sound for the life of the series.

 

The challenges faced by Classic Sound recording the LSO are a rather dry sounding Barbican Hall, and the fact they are only allowed to record live concerts. Stick an audience in a hall like the Barbican, and the resulting recorded sound is compromised. When Channel Classics records the Budapest Festival Orchestra in Budapest, the hall is adjusted via movable wall panels to its most live (wet) positions, and is empty except for the musicians. The difference is dramatic, but expensive for the hall rental.

[esldude]

5 hours ago, tailspn said:

I can not speak for Classic Sound Ltd (BTW, are they the rebirth of the old Decca house engineering team as Polyhymnia is the old Philips recording team?), but I'd suggest that they use the Decca Tree mic array as part of a ITU alignment for an original surround recording, later mixing and balancing it for stereo.

 

For stereo only, the MS alignment is a good candidate for intensity stereo pickup. Many orchestra recording engineers do use both a ITU surround alignment (Decca Tree front) and additionally a separate MS or XY/ORTF for stereo, plus support mics.  Channel Classics has used that dual separate alignments for years for simultaneous separate surround and stereo recordings.

I agree about the use of Decca for stereo.  Never quite right to me.  MS main pair and flanked omnis seems better, and often just skip the omnis. 

 

Now I have been experimenting with some surround recording though done no recording of real performances yet.  The Martin-Corey array seems to be really nice.  Wide cardioids up front three of them on about a half meter triangle.  One 90 degrees right, one 90 degrees left and one straight ahead.  Then a couple meters back a pair of spaced cardioids pointed upward towards the ceiling.  The rear cards though pointing upward might tilt to the edges a bit depending on how the ceiling is shaped. Also add one omni right in the middle for a .1 channel to capture the low end. 

 

 

[semente]

1 hour ago, tailspn said:

You're correct Norton; up to just a year or so ago James Mallison and Classic Sound were the producer and recording company for both the Mariinsky and LSO Live series. The Mariinsky started with Mallison and Soundmirror for the first 4-5 releases, then Mallison switched to Classic Sound. About two years ago Mariinsky went in house for engineering and IIRC, producing. LSO Live has been recorded by Classic Sound for the life of the series.

 

The challenges faced by Classic Sound recording the LSO are a rather dry sounding Barbican Hall, and the fact they are only allowed to record live concerts. Stick an audience in a hall like the Barbican, and the resulting recorded sound is compromised. When Channel Classics records the Budapest Festival Orchestra in Budapest, the hall is adjusted via movable wall panels to its most live (wet) positions, and is empty except for the musicians. The difference is dramatic, but expensive for the hall rental.

 

Live requires the use of minimal mic'ing, which I prefer.

When I was living in Lisbon I would often listen to broadcasts of live performances of different European orchestras, which had been recorded by the local radios and distributed via Eurovision.

Most of them sounded quite good, often better than many commercial recordings, and I have always attributed this to the simple mic setups and minimal processing; I may be wrong.

 

R 

[tailspn]

Semente, I agree for my preference in recording. And you raise an interesting point about commercial recordings and broadcast. Commercial orchestra recordings sound quite different than simple mic'd or broadcast, and for a reason.

 

If you talk to acoustic music recording engineers and producers, you'll discover there's no intent of recording a performance as heard in the hall, or in reality. It's about satisfying potential customer's perception of a performance, not the actual performance in an acoustic space. That's the reason for multi-micing sections, and even individual instruments of an orchestra, in addition to the overall spatial micing array. It's to provide the sonic equivalent of the ear/brain processing of the sound at an ideal listening position, supported by the visual input of watching an orchestra. Next time you're at a concert, close your eyes for a few moments, and hear the difference. The visual input provides a focus that without it, causes the ear/brain sound image to become more distant.

 

To provide a like sense of focus and detail (it's called warmth by many recording engineers/producers), requires support micing, which distorts the sense of spatial reality. But it's what the purchasing public has come to expect, so commercial recordings accommodate. Orchestra broadcasts (with exception of the wonderful BBC Proms) tend to be more simply mic'd, usually a stereo pair and few support mics other than soloist mics. 

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, tailspn said:

Semente, I agree for my preference in recording. And you raise an interesting point about commercial recordings and broadcast. Commercial orchestra recordings sound quite different than simple mic'd or broadcast, and for a reason.

 

If you talk to acoustic music recording engineers and producers, you'll discover there's no intent of recording a performance as heard in the hall, or in reality. It's about satisfying potential customer's perception of a performance, not the actual performance in an acoustic space. That's the reason for multi-micing sections, and even individual instruments of an orchestra, in addition to the overall spatial micing array. It's to provide the sonic equivalent of the ear/brain processing of the sound at an ideal listening position, supported by the visual input of watching an orchestra. Next time you're at a concert, close your eyes for a few moments, and hear the difference. The visual input provides a focus that without it, causes the ear/brain sound image to become more distant.

 

To provide a like sense of focus and detail (it's called warmth by many recording engineers/producers), requires support micing, which distorts the sense of spatial reality. But it's what the purchasing public has come to expect, so commercial recordings accommodate. Orchestra broadcasts (with exception of the wonderful BBC Proms) tend to be more simply mic'd, usually a stereo pair and few support mics other than soloist mics. 

 

I have always found that spaced omnis (like Bob Fine of Mercury and Lewis Leyton of RCA used in the 1950s to be wrongheaded for great stereo, and the Decca tree to be just wrong. The three spaced omnis one stage left, one stage right and a third stage center, will give some semblance of a stereo image. But  that;s because each mike is pretty far apart from the others. But the Decca tree uses three omnis very close together. The right and left omnis are but 2 meters apart and the third omni is halfway between them and about 1.5 meters in front of the two other mikes. This might work ok with cardioids (I've never tried it) but 2 meters between omnidirectional mikes is too close to give any real stereo separation and is essentially mono, especially when mixed with the center omni.  

[tailspn]

Good thing I only ever record 5.0 surround    

 

I have no experience recording for stereo, and no interest. We'll be putting up a free out take of the beginning of the BFO Mahler 3 in another week on NativeDSD to introduce the Channel Classics release. This clip (not the Channel Classics recording) was DSD256 recorded in 5.0 using five microphones, the front three of which comply to your diagram, only a third again larger dimensions. I'll be mastering out all the DSD bit rates, plus DXD, for 5.0, and mixing the five channels to stereo for all bit rates.

 

All the mics were omni's; three  DPA 4041SP's in front, and two DPA 4006A's  in the surround rears. Check it out when we put it up, and let me know what you think.

 

BTW, the Decca engineers rarely, if ever used the dimensions posted for the advertized Decca Tree. They more or less used the proportions, but sized the spacing to the venue, the orchestra size, and the music content. There's an interesting discussion of this here:

 

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/remote-possibilities-acoustic-music-location-recording/1068958-decca-tree-spacing.html

[crenca]

1 hour ago, tailspn said:

Good thing I only ever record 5.0 surround    

 

I have no experience recording for stereo, and no interest. We'll be putting up a free out take of the beginning of the BFO Mahler 3 in another week on NativeDSD to introduce the Channel Classics release. This clip (not the Channel Classics recording) was DSD256 recorded in 5.0 using five microphones, the front three of which comply to your diagram, only a third again larger dimensions. I'll be mastering out all the DSD bit rates, plus DXD, for 5.0, and mixing the five channels to stereo for all bit rates.

 

All the mics were omni's; three  DPA 4041SP's in front, and two DPA 4006A's  in the surround rears. Check it out when we put it up, and let me know what you think.

 

BTW, the Decca engineers rarely, if ever used the dimensions posted for the advertized Decca Tree. They more or less used the proportions, but sized the spacing to the venue, the orchestra size, and the music content. There's an interesting discussion of this here:

 

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/remote-possibilities-acoustic-music-location-recording/1068958-decca-tree-spacing.html

 

This post reminds me to give a shout out to Jonas Sacks and NativeDSD.  I purchased the DSD256 recording of the Hamlet Piano Trio on Saturday and the darn thing kept timing out before I could get all 7.49 Gig of it (connection reset - I don't think it was an issue with my ISP but who knows).  So I sent a message asking to have the file split up for me by track so I could successfully download it.  Well, I tried one last time (6th or 7th) before going to bed Sunday night and when I woke up this morning the download had been successful.  Minutes afterwards I got an email from Jonas and he said he was working on splitting up the file - I told him not to bother.  In any case, I appreciated the prompt Monday morning attention to my issue.  Good customer service!

[Fitzcaraldo215]

15 hours ago, tailspn said:

Good thing I only ever record 5.0 surround    

 

I have no experience recording for stereo, and no interest. We'll be putting up a free out take of the beginning of the BFO Mahler 3 in another week on NativeDSD to introduce the Channel Classics release. This clip (not the Channel Classics recording) was DSD256 recorded in 5.0 using five microphones, the front three of which comply to your diagram, only a third again larger dimensions. I'll be mastering out all the DSD bit rates, plus DXD, for 5.0, and mixing the five channels to stereo for all bit rates.

 

All the mics were omni's; three  DPA 4041SP's in front, and two DPA 4006A's  in the surround rears. Check it out when we put it up, and let me know what you think.

 

BTW, the Decca engineers rarely, if ever used the dimensions posted for the advertized Decca Tree. They more or less used the proportions, but sized the spacing to the venue, the orchestra size, and the music content. There's an interesting discussion of this here:

 

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/remote-possibilities-acoustic-music-location-recording/1068958-decca-tree-spacing.html

I have had the good fortune to have heard your BFO Mahler 3rd in Mch, of course, Tom, as you know.  It is the finest recording I personally have heard to date.  I believe John Atkinson said the same thing. Kal Rubinson of Sterophile and Andy Quint of TAS were also effusive with their praise of it, among many others.  I believe Merging also used it for demos at numerous shows and other events.

[Bob Stern]

NativeDSD says the LSO Live Verdi Requiem was recorded at DSD128, but they only sell it in DSD64.  Is that because it was mixed at DSD64 even though the mic feed was captured at DSD128?  Or is it an error?

[tailspn]

Yes Bob, you're correct; it was recorded in DSD128, mixed and balanced in DXD (352.8KHz PCM), and then the edited master outputted in DSD64 for SACD production. The DSD64 edited master is then also used for distribution to download sites for DSD digital sales. LSO Live's primary release distribution media is SACD, and therefore the mastering process is geared to DSD64.

 

However, while in the DXD mixing and mastering stage, LSO Live and Classic Sound if they wished could also choose to create Pyramix DXD Digital Release in .mtff format (Merging Technologies File Format), allowing direct conversion with no intermediate steps to all of the DSD bit rates as well as any PCM. We're encouraging them to do that.