Examples of more with less

I'm fishing here with this one, but it occurs to me that in this day and age with all of the incredible, affordable technology right at our fingertips, it still seems like a mystery how stuff that was recorded back in the early 60's still sounds a lot better than what a lot of amateurs (myself included!) produce today. Now, I realize that even back then proper recording studios were used vs. a bedroom or garage, and that professional engineers/producers were on the job, but c'mon. I'd say the average Joe probably has more sophisticated gear in his arsenal today than what they had back then, so what's the secret?

That said, I'd like to know if perhaps there's ever been a post that's solicited for "the best with the least", as it pertains to gear. What's the best sounding recording you guys have done with the minimal complement of equipment? What exactly did you use for it? Can we hear it? Even if it's one acoustic guitar and one singer (i.e. Blackbird), I'd love to hear it!

I think a lot of us might find this quite inspiring. I know I would!

I'm fishing here with this one, but it occurs to me that in this day and age with all of the incredible, affordable technology right at our fingertips, it still seems like a mystery how stuff that was recorded back in the early 60's still sounds a lot better than what a lot of amateurs (myself included!) produce today. Now, I realize that even back then proper recording studios were used vs. a bedroom or garage, and that professional engineers/producers were on the job, but c'mon. I'd say the average Joe probably has more sophisticated gear in his arsenal today than what they had back then, so what's the secret?

Actually, you pretty much answered your own question. Proper studios have sensible acoustic design, and that makes more difference than you'd probably ever credit - until you'd tried using one, that is. It takes pretty much all of the experimentation/guesswork out of mic placement, and generally makes it a lot easier to get a good performance as well as a good recording from performers - they play better in a sympathetic environment. And engineers were trained to be able to make the most of this as well - that's one of the major things that a 'studio apprenticeships' achieved. You simply don't get this with college-based so-called training courses - you very rarely if at all get to work with name engineers and producers, recording professional artistes, so how are you really going to learn how it works in (the remains of) the real world?

The equipment you use has very little to do with the end results per se - what you had to learn back then was the way to get the best from what you had, and this stage in learning seems to be curiously missing these days with a lot of people. What that also taught you was to be analytical - and that's pretty important in getting good results from everything. In many ways (as you might be beginning to see) sophisticated equipment pretty much gets in the way of getting good results, simply because it makes you lazy. For instance, one reason that a lot of 60's recorded sound was good wasn't actually the sound at all - it was the result of a load of musicians actually playing together. And that always produces better results than single-instrument-at-a-time multitracking.

Even in control rooms, having a sensible acoustic makes a huge difference - a lot of purpose-built studios back then had far better room responses than anything people have in their bedrooms nowadays. How on earth anybody expects to get better results in one of these compared to a controlled environment is a bit of a mystery to me, I'm afraid.

So it's no secret - it's simple common sense, when you consider what's really happening I think.

Thanks, Steve. Good insight on something that a lot of us no doubt wonder about.

I'd still be very curious to hear some examples of quality recording using the least amount of gear. If you know of any, and happen to know the history behind the recordings, I'd love to know about them! I think it would be a kick to hear what people can do in an amateur environment.

As Steve says, pro engineers will do a pro job.  Sophisticated equipment may make many things easier to do than they used to be, but the decision when to use an effect is not materially different as a result - that should be a musical decision.  

Also, some of the modern sophistication is simply more and easier ways of faking things (like multitracking rather than playing as a group), and so makes poorer musicians think themselves better than they are.  For example, before Autotune, singers simply had to sing well enough in tune - and, within reason, slight irregularities of pitch were, and are, part of the sound of a real performance - but using Autotune fools some people into thinking that skill is unimportant and they can sing well enough, when really...

So start from an attitude of "less is more", and only add tools from your sophisticated arsenal when you have some understanding of why you need them in a specific situation, rather than in an attempt to get out of a hole or to provide a substitute for inspiration.

As for quality sound from little gear, well, the amount  of gear is neither here nor there - plenty of albums were recorded using a single stereo microphone recorded straight to a stereo tape deck.  In the 1950s or 60s they would be bulky jobbies; but in the 1980s, maybe very portable - I certainly know of jazz albums recorded using the pocket-sized Sony WM-D6C Pro Walkman with a single stereo microphone; part of a recording of Verdi's Requiem that I made using just a Sony stereo camera microphone (ECM-959LT) and a decent VHS Hi-Fi recorder made it onto a (limited edition) CD.

Paul

I'd still be very curious to hear some examples of quality recording using the least amount of gear. If you know of any, and happen to know the history behind the recordings, I'd love to know about them!

Most of the recording I do these days is what you might call 'classical', and all of it is recorded on location using the minimum appropriate amount of equipment. But the only thing that varies in the equation of what's appropriate is the amount of microphones, and accordingly where they are placed. And that's where the analytical bit comes in - sometimes I know that I can get acceptable recordings with just a single stereo pair if I place it correctly, and in that case that's all I'd use, plus a preamp, straight into a two-channel recorder. In other cases I'll augment this with a distant pair as well, and record it to multitrack. But there's nothing else involved at this stage at all; how good it is depends entirely on the performers, really - the recordings are generally pretty straightforward.

But with classical recording of this nature, nothing has really changed except since the late 60's/early 70's except that the absolute quality of the equipment has improved, and that makes it slightly easier to achieve an acceptable result, perhaps - but not much. I'll see if I can cobble together a couple of examples of what I mean, but it may take a couple of days to do this, as I've got rather a lot on at present.

A couple of really good responses from both of you, thanks. Your points are well taken. Steve, I'd love to hear your examples when you have time. Mr. Hodges, is that CD you mentioned anywhere I might find it? Thanks again, you guys.

No, the CD was private, for the 250th year celebration of a school, whose choir and orchestra are performing; I don't even have a copy myself.  I can put up a clip for you this evening; however, it won't be from the VHS master, which is in the possession of my former wife (who was one of the soloists), but from the simultaneous recording made on the Sony WM-D6C whose mic amp was being used for the single Sony ECM-959LT mic.  Although using the best metal tape of the time, it is a trace congested compared with the VHS Hi-Fi track, though without the gross head-switching artefacts that appear in that version under the soprano soloist's quiet high notes in places.

Meanwhile, a solo piano is as uncomplicated as it gets (note that I didn't say easy), and two of the three clips of mine discussed in this old thread were recorded using a single stereo microphone and preamp direct to DAT - a domestic one, not a pro model.  As far as I know, you can still buy all the CDs concerned.

[EDIT] Here it is: Verdi, Requiem, Libera me (part).  This is from the VHS Hi-Fi tape after all, but transcribed on an inferior video deck which is much noisier than the one it was recorded on (but just check that dynamic range).  Still, you may enjoy it a bit, though it's rather far from what you might do in a bedroom studio!  Remember, it's not professional, but a (very big) school choir and orchestra; and the soprano soloist (not  my former wife) is not a professional either.  The recording was made in 1989 in Oxford Town Hall, and is as dry as it is simply because the place was packed full to the gills.

Paul

All that from one mic? That was great. This is what I'm talking about. What could be simpler than one mic? This might've been over-mic'd and not turn out as well. Sometimes less is more!

But not necessarily less effort.  Sure, I can sling a mic and record a concert pretty  well, but getting it just so  takes a lot more care.  Each of the piano recordings I linked in the other thread came from a CD which took six three-hour sessions to record; in each case, most of the first session was taken up with getting the piano and mic positions just so - and that in a well-known studio that's used for a lot of piano recordings, so can't be bad.

Just to remind you, the Verdi was not just illustrating a simple technique, but the result of using purely domestic gear as well; I have technically far better stuff done with no more equipment, but that of considerably better quality (I can and do take my normal gear to a gig, including mic stand and cables, on a bicycle).

But think about it.  If you're recording (as I generally do) a live gig (mine are mainly classical, occasionally jazz) you only listen with one head, and it (hopefully!) sounds good.  Now there are plenty of things that get lost when you just stick a mic where your head is and play the result through speakers, but none-the-less, it's not a bad starting point.  If you walk around the stage where an orchestra might play, you can start to hear that the acoustic in various places sounds different; if you then record an orchestra using a bundle of mics around the stage mixed together, the various parts of the orchestra would then be reproduced with slightly different acoustics, which doesn't sound quite natural.  Again, there are things that can be done to cover this; but what I am trying to do is make you aware of some of the issues that arise at the very start of recording, even before you get to edit, process or master the result.  The best way to get things right is to avoid getting them wrong in the first place!

Paul

I've been doing recording at home for about 10 years.  One thing I noticed recently was that an AKG C414 sounds a lot better than a Rode N1.  I'd never had the opportunity to use a $1,000 mic before.  A stunning difference.

I always thought that it really depends on who is playing the instrument, not the instrument.

However when I got to get hold of a sophisticated piece of instrument it changed my way of thinking. Yes there can exceptions but you can't change the fact that sophisticated instruments/equipments are for more greater than than the cheap ones. Their prices already telling you what are their enormous difference.

I just remembered a colleague of mine, he said that if you handed John Williams or Julianne Bream a non concert grand classical guitar do you think they can still play as beautiful and Enthralling? Then I just realized in order for a Painter to produce a world class painting he's going to need to have a world class equipment and same principle can be applied in recording and producing music. 

I just remembered a colleague of mine, he said that if you handed John Williams or Julianne Bream a non concert grand classical guitar do you think they can still play as beautiful and Enthralling?

I think you'd find that they could - although Julian Bream probably won't thank you for making him female!

I would gently disagree with this, to an extent.  A great musician can exude greatness regardless of the instrument they're confined to, without a doubt.  But this can only go so far.  I can tell you from my own personal experiences with a world-class guitarist, or performing at pianos of a wide range of quality, that no amount of technique or interpretive nuance is going to make a dull or harsh instrument "sing" sweetly.  Such is the blessing of attaining A-list artist status, because public appearances will always be made with the best instruments possible!  Totally unfair to the rest of us!

I would gently disagree with this, to an extent.  A great musician can exude greatness regardless of the instrument they're confined to, without a doubt.  But this can only go so far. I can tell you from my own personal experiences...

I'm glad you said 'to an extent' - from my personal experience, you might be surprised just how far that can be... especially in the 'enthralling' stakes.

Truly great A-listers have an amazing ability to get the best out of any instrument they are given - very often their ability to perform transcends the instrument completely. If an instrument 'changes your way of thinking' (4 posts back), then the chances are that you're not even in the ballpark, because at that level of performance, conscious thought doesn't really enter into it; you've either got it or you haven't. Yes, you might have to exert more control over some instruments than others, and nobody is really going to expect great performers to play regularly on inferior instruments, but it can be done - sometimes under circumstances of extreme instrumental distress. You want a good example? Art Tatum. Don't think he ever got to play a decent instrument in his life, but he sure as hell transcended the ones he did play. He was legendary for getting amazing performances out of what were regarded as virtually unplayable instruments.

Sometimes it's not so good though. No names, but I have heard a great violinist pick up a child's learning instrument and make it sing like a Strad - whatever you might think, they can do that. Quite put the child concerned off, to the extent that she virtually gave it up on the spot, supposing (probably quite correctly) that she'd never be that good. It's very easy for a lot of people to fool themselves into thinking that all those great performances they are listening to are great because of the instruments used, and that if they had one that good they'd be half-way there - but it ain't so. And in this case, that was bought home rather harshly, I thought.

I have several other examples too, all from my own experience, and they all reveal facets of the same thing - and I'd say that most of it comes from the performer.

I wouldn't disagree one iota with these great anecdotes or the general principle that "truly great A-listers have an amazing ability to get the best out of any instrument they are given."

Perhaps I'm leaning on personal experience too much... and I'm not that good of a pianist!