Yes but only once, for a couple of days and it was many years ago.
It’s not too bad, there are certainly some quieter ones. The difficulty comes when trying to get a balance with modern instruments. Modern string, woodwind and brass instruments are significantly louder than period instruments.
It has no dynamics at all. The only way of getting something louder is by doubling the notes/putting more notes in the chords. This is a good thing from a recording perspective though, instruments with a wide dynamic range are more difficult to record. Incidentally, there were some harpsichords made with a second keyboard and a second set of strings, using an extra string per note. This keyboard therefore produced a bit more volume than the other, so there was a bit of dynamic range available.
Depending on the different constructions it can be a problem. Generally we mic a harpsichord pretty much the same as a piano. However, in an ensemble recording it’s more likely we’ll have the lid lower or as close to closed as possible, to provide some isolation. We can get the thump problem with a piano as well, although usually it’s the pedals that can be the problem. It’s definitely worth making sure the felts and leathers are relatively new when recording a harpsichord. Older leather can harden and between that and worn felts, you’ll have a problem. We would probably rely a bit more on mics slightly in front of the harpsichord in the case of a solo/unaccompanied instrument, to get a bit further away from the plucking mechanism but in an ensemble we’d probably be restricted to mics inside the instrument. In this case we’d probably have the mics somewhat further away from the mechanism than we would with piano hammers.
Do you know if Academy of Ancient Music records in studio? Wonder if it's ever preferable to have period instruments in another venue (or not if your placement of microphone is closer)? When you're mixing for period instruments, do you try to add in reverb/delay to give a sense of acoustics?
No, I don’t know. As they are based at Cambridge University, I would think they often record there because there are potentially numerous rooms appropriate for recording.
Preferable to whom? For the recording engineers, probably not but for the ensemble it’s probably preferable to use a room of the period or earlier. Period instruments were designed for relatively small rooms or churches. Orchestras were really just medium or large ensembles at that time, typically only a dozen or so musicians in the early baroque period but up to as much as 40 by the end of the classical period.
There was quite a vociferous argument raging when I was a music student (and later) between those who were fairly hardline/fanatical about period instruments and those who argued that not enough was known about performance styles and other factors (such as tunings for instance) of the period to justify strict adherence to period instruments/practices. The Academy of Ancient Music was at the forefront of that argument (on the hardline side) and assuming that’s still the case, I would guess they’re philosophically opposed to the idea of studio recordings with artificial reverb, etc. Although, Air Lyndhurst is one of the top two or three studios in the UK and is a converted church so probably would be acceptable.
I am amazed by the number of albums they have out, and considering the different sizes of ensembles/small symphony, was thinking out loud about if there's instances for open spaces. We had a short exchange about SACD: actually bought their Brandenburg concertos disc after the performance, which is hybrid SACD.
I was going for opinion of audio engineer. It seems it's preferable that the microphone placement is where you get the most direct recording of the instrument (IE no reflections that's not primary to the intonation of the instrument)?
Ah, interesting to see how Academy of Ancient Music have always been hard liner purists including possibly recording/mixing. Well at least with their performances, their adherence to period instruments can be a treat. We previously brought up about how when you're in an auditorium, there's hidden mics and speakers so there's not a pure acoustic performance. Well maybe also that I have a big background in photography (forgive me), a "natural" photograph can be heavily edited. Most folks know about Ansel Adams...most his time was spent in the dark room. He knew what camera setting he needed to expose, and then it was hours to "tonemap" that well exposed 14 stop film negative to 8 stop paper print. I'm one of those that know what optimal exposure I should have and also intend what I need for editing
The best SACD I have for multichannel is actually originally a quadrophonic album from the 70s (Bach toccatas from 4 organ cathedral). It's amazing to me how much it gets expensive after so many years out of print
What’s preferable is what you want to end up with and how you want to get there. So it’s preferable in some situations to have close mics to capture the most direct sound but not in others. In most acoustic classical music, spot/close mics are used to reinforce the main array, (of certain instruments/instrument sections at certain times). In this case, the use of spot mics is to gain some degree of isolation/separation and capturing more direct sound/fewer reflections is actually an unavoidable disadvantage. This explains the slight nomenclature difference between “spot mics” and “close mics” even though physically they can be the same thing.
TBH, I have no idea if they are as hardline with record/mixing. It’s a fair assumption based on how hardline they can be about the instruments but it’s nothing more than an assumption.
That’s typically only in the larger concert halls and is only sometimes the case.
Not sure a photography analogy is appropriate. In music, while the manufacture of instruments obviously has quite an impact on the sound, how you play those instruments (performance styles/conventions) also has a large impact and the problem is that scores particularly from the C17th but even the C18th provide very few clues. They usually don’t even contain all the notes in the piece let alone any stylistic directions and we do know that at least somethings must have been significantly different, though not how. For example, certain things (most commonly found in brass parts) are not possible with the instruments of the period, unless they performed them in a way that is now lost or unless sensibilities at the time were so vastly different to even the C19th musicians/audiences that it is now impossible to imagine (EG. It would just sound like a horrible mistake, like a modern “beginner”).
Yamaha reconstructed Notre Dame with their DSPs? There was several specific Notre Dame positions pre fire? Simulating different acoustic environments to an extent: many audio brands have. I was a Harman Kardon fan until they were bought out and left the speaker amp scene. Many people liked their Logic 7 matrix surround over Dolby's or DTS: my receivers would also have some venue DSPs.
A dozen different general acoustics, sure. But the NYT article is going over more advanced modeling of one location: full reconstruction of each area in the cathedral based on materials and and dimensions. I just find it amazing that they also have an acoustics team that can help dictate how the reconstruction should go. They've been having to do quite a workflow in cleaning all the masonry, as it's caked with centuries of dust containing lead. I would think lack of that dust on stone surfaces could effect sound reflections (in the scheme of things, maybe not significant). Also would be hard to be a "purist" if there were structural changes outside/upper portions during 19th century.
I'm still skeptical that they would be able to model those venues at the same level as what's being done with Notre Dame now: especially if your DSP won't let you set specific areas at The Berlin Philharmonic hall.
