Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

con_ritmo

Members
  • Posts

    231
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by con_ritmo

  1. A few weeks back, Selim asked the very same question. You should be able to still find his threads by going through the past threads. Normally when recording instruments that use pickups... You mic their amp with well..a microphone. One reason for this is because the amp is a large part of your sound...another reason is because recording a direct pickup feed usually sounds pretty nasty. If you were going to take a feed directly from your pickup, the chain would look a bit like this... di box->preamp->recording interface. Some preamps have di boxes built-in. The recording interface depends up to you. It could be a sound card, or it could be an external converter that goes via usb/firewire into a computer, or it could be an hd recorder (or some type of digital recorder)...or analog tape...or...etc.etc.etc. If you were open to recording your violin acoustically with a microphone you could go that route as well...which is how most violins are recorded anyways. microphone->preamp->recording interface. edit: Seabird's solution is about as inexpensive as you're going to find.
  2. The Eugene kid is good...very good...and has received some great training. In some aspects I prefer him over that Vengerov recording. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You don't have the ridiculous facial expressions with Eugene for one thing... As Jimbow mentioned though, the recording is HORRIBLE. The microphones are picking up too much reflected sound and too much piano. The result is mush with the piano dominating over the violin.
  3. when recording stereo with 2 omnidirectional mics, one is most likely going to be using what is known as an "ab stereo" technique. you can read about it on the dpa website. www.dpamicrophones.com click on... microphone university->stereo techniques->a-b stereo when you get to the "stereo techniques" page, the picture is of two microphones in an "a-b stereo" setup...when you record with two behringers ecm8000's you're going to set them up in a similar fashion. otoh, when you first click on the "microphone university" page, you see two microphones crossed over each other in a stereo recording arrangement known as "near coincident"/"ortf". that is a type of stereo recording arrangement for directional/cardioid microphones, not for omni microphones like the behringer.
  4. good viewpoints by all. there is more to a microphone than just it's published frequency response curves. you usually just see what the frequency response is from the front of the mic...the "on axis" sound. However, the microphone essentially picks up sound from all directions...with different frequency responses...so it is the sum of this off-axis sound with the main on-axis sound which brings you closer to the final product... because of this, you can also color the sound not only by where the mic is located...but also by where the mic is pointed. next, you have a microphone's impulse and transient response. how fast can it react to a sound...(think a hit of a snare drum) low mass microphones, small diaphragm microphones....like the behringer...usually (but not always) have a faster transient response, so it can respond to details and nuances. whereas a microphone with poor transient response would tend to "blur" the sound a bit...in some cases you'd think the sound became "softened"... so, depending on a mic's off-axis response and transient response...your sound will be colored accordingly. off-axis and transient response is a reason why "accurate-ish" mics are normally small diaphragm condensers... vocal mics are normally large diaphragm...because you can really flatter a vocal with a mic's coloration. you also have what is called the "proximity" effect. the closer a directional microphone is to a source...the bassier it will be in its frequency response (and vice versa). whereas an omnidirectional microphone that pics up sound from all directions...will not exhibit this effect. the most glaring difference in this comparison is that the levels are not matched between the two mics. ideally when setting up a microphone comparison...you need to adjust the levels so that both are the same. when they are different...not only do you have a psychological difference...(the softer one usually sounds more subdued, less present, etc.etc.)...but your ear also has different frequency response curves at different loudness levels.
  5. Now we are getting somewhere. And yes we are talking classical. When someone only brings up the names Auer, Heifetz, Milstein, Bronstein, Galamian, Steinhardt, and Undjian...they are referring to classical. After reading your post, I am brought back to my initial statement on this thread. quote: Originally posted by: con_ritmo for sure, the high finger pressure does not come from excessive muscular effort...it's more from loose dead free-weight... so from that point...perhaps the high pressure/low pressure people are actually doing things more similarly than differently...the low pressure people are just describing the action, and the high pressure people are describing the point as to where the string speaks cleanly. As I originally stated, I do believe we are doing things more similarly than differently...my viewpoint coming more from the lowering action of the fingers... You raised a concern over the term lose dead free-weight... quote: I am confused by that sentence. Maybe I am reading this wrong, but it seems to say: "The high finger pressure is actually more from loose dead weight". Those concepts appear to be contrary. "High finger pressure" suggests pressing, whereas "dead free-weight" implies no pressure. There must be some pressure, and Prof. Auer uses that term throughout his article. I agree that the feeling should not be tense, but it must be active, not dead. Think of right hand/arm technique. One does not actively PRESS into the strings with their arm/hand/etc. Rather, one applies WEIGHT...by allowing a natural weight transfer from the upper arm, through the forearm->hands->wrists->fingers and into the bow. Truly the sense is that there is no muscular effort involved whatsoever...which I'd like to call "dead free-weight". Telling a student to PRESS implies muscular effort, which in turn creates tension, which in turn blocks this flow of "dead free-weight"...which causes the student to apply even more muscular effort...a bad cycle. A similar concept applies with the left hand. The fingers move only from the base joints closest to the knuckles...and the sense is of a weight transfer from the hand->through the base joints->through the mid joint->and into the fingertips. A common mistake is for beginners to actively use all their joints in the finger (instead of just the base joint)...which, like the bowarm, creates a negative cycle which blocks natural "dead free-weight" transfer...and necessitates the usage of even more muscular effort (=bad). The bottom line here is that using the term PRESS...or PRESSURE will usually cause a response of muscular effort/tension...whereas using the term WEIGHT should allow for a economized weight transfer which requires very little (if any) effort. Both of us can be talking about the SAME thing (or not), but to me, using the word PRESS/PRESSURE creates a false idea of muscular effort... quote: As Prof. Auer states, "the pressure of the fingers must conform in exact measure to their physical strength". This would seem to assure contact with the fingerboard. The fact that he says the finger pressure should increase in piano and pianissimo does not imply that they were using "loose, dead weight" when playing more loudly, only that the already firm, (not excessive), pressure should be increased to assure a clear, responsive vibration of the string with little effort from the right hand. In my work with Mr. Heifetz' assistant I was taught to make firm contact with the fingerboard, while remaining supple and agile. My take on the Auer's "pressure of the fingers must conform in exact measure to their physical strength" is this: Someone with the size of Perlman's huge hands literally doesn't have to do anything. Whereas, someone with the tiniest of hands may need to apply some more weight. I have pretty miniscule hands and from my viewpoint the amount of weight necessary is pretty much zero. Or...think of it within the fingers of an individual hand... If one is playing 1-4 octaves...the first finger is much bigger than the pinky. So make sure that the first finger applies only the smallest amount of vertical weight...otherwise the resulting sound might be unbalanced with the lighter fourth finger. quote: Varying the pressure of the fingers can be useful in adding nuances to the quality of tone. A light pressure has a softening effect, whereas a firmer contact produces a more brilliant tone. Yes, one creates nuances with the amount of weight into the string. However, I would describe the effect differently...a lighter weight has a ROUNDER effect, and a heavier weight has a more ANGULAR effect. Most of the time we want our tone as ROUND as possible (at least that's what I prefer) ...reserving the more ANGULAR sound for the small amount of passages which need to create excessive tension/strain in the sound...(think 20th century russian works) In any case the difference in the weight between ROUND and ANGULAR is very very small...and you can create both sounds while still feeling the string vibrating underneath the left hand fingers. Also, the right hand still has a much greater role in the production of the sound. quote: I only have trouble with the last sentence, "so everything should be as loose as possible". This moves too far to the extreme. Perhaps it would be better worded: "so only the necessary amount of effort should be applied". Seasoned players have developed their finger strength to the point where it feels as if they are applying little to no pressure when they play, but many beginners require what to them seems to be a great deal of pressure.....Rather than trying to convince them to abandon all use of strength in their playing, allowing their fingers to drop limply upon the strings Yes, although I take exception on two points: 1. It should never require a great deal of pressure EVEN if one is a beginner. For beginners it's more about developing coordination, speed, lifting action, and directing weight transfer.... 2. Everything SHOULD be as loose as possible. Lets be realistic...unless one is at the relaxation level of a Heifetz or a Milstein...one is STILL exerting too much muscular effort. And I can safely say that just about every one of us is NOT at the relaxation level of Heifetz/Milstein. The funny thing is that to get closer to that point, you really do abandon a great deal of muscular effort (relying again on natural weight transfer)...and as the weight is transfered through certain parts...those parts are pretty darn limp. Anyways, Djerzy, I appreciate the time taken for composing a genuine reply. That, in the end, will always help people more.
  6. quote: Originally posted by: skiingfiddler I don't see how anything stated on this thread contradicts the ideas in the Auer piece. Maybe I'm not reading carefully enough. Thanks Skiingfiddler. I could write a lengthy reply to Djerzy's post but I think your words sum it up nicely. Auer definitely was one of the greatest teachers ever. He states that the more pianissimo you play, the more finger pressure you use. Think about it then the other way...the louder you play, the less finger pressure you need. In front of an orchestra there is hardly EVER a time when one is playing piano or pianissimo. Rather you just give the tonal illusion of playing "softer" when really you're still playing loud. Therefore as a soloist in front of an orchestra you wouldn't need that increased finger pressure that Auer is talking about. Do you think that Auer's students follow everything he said word-by-word? Auer more or less uses vibrato sparingly. Tell that to Heifetz and his luscious vibrato. In principle when Auer talks about vibrato as an expressive effect...he is absolutely correct. His ears were also trained to a time when vibrato wasn't used to the effect that his students would later usher in. But if you were to follow his ideas of vibrato today....people would think that you had no vibrato. Both Heifetz and Milstein were masters at expending only the necessary amount of energy...to the point where you hear the common saying... "if you were to simply blow air on Heifetz's violin it would fall out of his hands"...he held his violin THAT loose. Does that sound like someone that is just using high finger pressure blindly...or someone that is using only the required amount of pressure that is necessary? Next you have Bronstein...Auer's teaching assistant...and Galamian...who studied with Mostras, a student of Auer. What do they have to say? Bronstein frequently talks about only using the natural weight of the finger...and Galamian says to never use more pressure than is necessary...and that if anything, students use way too much finger effort. ...which is exactly the SAME thing I'm saying. and many times, for solo playing, i find that if you cannot feel the string vibrating underneath your fingers...you are using too much pressure and are wasting your energy. get it to the point where the string speaks clearly and cleanly for the effect you want...and NOTHING more. The reality is that one should expend as little energy as possible. The name of the game is survival. I urge everyone out there...to find a style that is the most efficient way of conserving your energy. You may find that if you press a little more here...exert a little more effort there...that you might improve your sound by that little fraction. Don't fall into that trap. Arnold Steinhardt, the first violinists to the Guaneri quartet had to have surgery just to be able to continue playing. Peter Undjian, the first violinst to the Tokyo string quartet permananently injured his hand and had to both quit the quartet and stop performing. And even the great Heifetz...the relaxed Heifetz...stopped playing because his shoulder couldn't take it anymore...and he had to have shoulder surgery to regain functional use of it. If anything, you must be loose ALWAYS...using as little energy as possible...that is your main hope of being able to sustain a long life of violin playing. Looks like I wrote a lengthy reply anyways....and as for this: quote: Originally posted by: djerzy Apparently old Mr. Auer could have learned much from us, experts that we are. Too bad for his students that the internet didn't exist back then - they could have done so much better by discovering the folly of their teacher. Imagine the handicap that poor Heifetz, Elman, Zimbalist, Eddy Brown, Seidel and the rest had to deal with. I am from the Auer school by the way - via Heifetz/Claire Hodgkins in LA.
  7. lots of recognizable tunes from movies, musicals, operas, etc. edit: or if there's a lot of youth there, start playing some renditions of pop/rock tunes...
  8. quote: Originally posted by: DR. S Watched both videos. Beautiful bow arm. Left hand needs lots of work. Hope her teacher is working on quieting the left hand fingers and building towards developing a wrist vibrato. actually the fundamental bow arm motion needs major tweaking...right now it's all forearm and no upperarm...with that floppy hand/wrist thing going on. but hey, she's four. hopefully she switches teachers sooner than later.
  9. if you listen to the recordings you can get an idea as to which strings are being played for which notes. from there you can also hear where the big shifts are.
  10. for sure increased finger pressure in the left hand will NOT make you sound louder. a common example used many times is.... try playing the violin with the left hand only. you can pound as hard as you want, vibrate as hard as you want....but you're not making any tangible sound. that comes from the right hand. i find the danger is of too much finger pressure vs. too little. tension is a cancer that spreads throughout one's entire body...so if one is exerting too much effort/tension with the left hand, one would most likely do the same in the right hand. so everything should be as loose as possible. i'm from the camp that believes that the string doesn't have to be pushed down to the fingerboard. rather, you lightly add weight with your finger...to the point where the string speaks cleanly. usually this means that the string is not all the way down...the fingerpads surround the string on three sides (top, left, and right) and you can feel the string vibrating underneath your left hand fingers. that's a great feeling. iow, if you don't feel the string vibrating underneath your fingers, you're pressing too hard...(imho) i've seen many violinists become handicapped/crippled (playing-wise) in the higher positions and/or chords...because they are using too much pressure. otoh, there are several fine players and teachers which have recommended high finger pressure...(and there are those that do not). for sure, the high finger pressure does not come from excessive muscular effort...it's more from loose dead free-weight... so from that point...perhaps the high pressure/low pressure people are actually doing things more similarly than differently...the low pressure people are just describing the action, and the high pressure people are describing the point as to where the string speaks cleanly. as far as the flattening or arching of the fingers...i flatten the fingers for vibrato purposes on those long melodic lines...but keep the fingers high(er) and arched for the fast passagework.
  11. identify what happens physically when you get nervous... usually you start to clamp down with your head, your fingers, your hands...so consciously keep them loose. you'll also tighten up inside your body...for example you hear the saying "my stomach was tied up into knots..."...keep that loose too. breathe. being loose will help with intonation. bringing out your tone will help with intonation (so you can hear the overtones) always shift slowly and smoothly...don't just jump from position to position. practice your left hand frame positions (galamian thing) the beginner-like sound comes from tightening up as well...so that your right hand motion becomes small and/or forced. get it back to the smooth and efficient upper arm motion... mentally you have to know your work inside and out. when practicing don't go by feel. in your head think about the *name* of every note that you are playing...and hear the note before you play it. a lot of times anxiety comes from lack of preparation....or doubt over your abilities. you need to get the work utterly secure with slow, careful, and deliberate practice...so that every motion has been carefully prepared. basically when performing under nerves you're mentally trying to keep your body loose and relaxed, all your motions nice and smooth, and your hearing very alert. that takes up so much of your attention, that a lot less of your mental power will be applied to playing your piece (comparatively). so you need to get that piece up to the point where you don't really have to think that much about it. if it's not up to that point...when you get out on stage, the nerves kick in, and you don't have enough mental reserves to perform the piece well anymore... in the end...mistakes come from tension, either physical or mental.
  12. quote: Originally posted by: matzstudio Selim, it´s always a microphone, a preamp, an a/d converter and a recording software. in your case the audio interface serves as preamp and a/d converter. as long as you´re too short to buy a Neumann digital mic it will always be like that. i don´t know these Behringer mics you´re talking about, but as a professional sound engineer (and a passionate fiddler) i have always tried to avoid Behringer products as much as possible. a good mic is a lifetime investment - choose your budget accordingly. if you ever had the chance to enjoy a microphone comparison you won´t hang on to your Behringers. Selim, thanks for posting your results. I'm happy everything worked out. Neumann only has one digital mic that I'm aware of (Solution-D) and it's not really meant for micing violins...especially for the purposes that Selim is looking for...namely it doesn't have a flat frequency response. At $35-$50 you can't go wrong with that Behringer...it's noisy, the phase response is all over the place, but you're not really going to find another flattish frequency mic until you step it up and fork over the $$$. ..let alone at that bargain-basement price. Actually the Behringer is a Chinese copy of the MBHO 550 EL, Audix TR40, Josephson 550, etc.etc. Do a search for that If one was looking at upgrade options to possibly lust after....for the purpose that Selim is looking for (as flat as possible)...it's probably... Avenson Audio, Earthworks, Sennheiser (MKH20 model), Schoeps, and DPA. (of which I have some Earthworks, Schoeps, and DPA) That's where you'll get your flat frequency response mics... I have to get going atm, but I can post up more info later...
  13. quote: Originally posted by: gabi The music is played by Zukerman one of the Galamian's students. At a recent masterclass over here....Zukerman mentioned the exact same thing as Galamian...have the vibrato go back and away from you. He also says it on one of those online Zukerman masterclass vids which were filmed a couple years back. That's the bigger picture. take a look over at sassmannshaus's site violinmasterclass.com under vibrato...he too states quote: IMPORTANT: Vibrato is always below the pitch - in other words, the human ear perceives the highest point of the vibrato as the correct pitch so that's four references...galamian, bronstein, zukerman, and sassmannshaus which all state the same thing. anyways, 1. Taking a shapshot of a note or even a phrase, while telling...is truly like taking a word out of context in a poem. Plus, in a single piece, one could RTA/spectrum analyze it and find what you're looking for. 2. Applying ~equal temperament tuning to a recording is meaningless. So is applying an ~A440 tonal center. 3. I understand why you show the harmonic overtones...but it's a bit misleading. At the resolution/scale shown the fundamentals would be a straight line. Still, I'm sure there's a good doctoral thesis/journal article in what you're doing....if one would rta/spectrum analyze works and players on a LARGE and exhaustive scale...
  14. quote: Originally posted by: gabi "The human ear will hear the sharpest pitch as the tonal center of vibrating note" That is not correct. We hear the lowest pitch as the center note.(think about trills) Your hand should upswing from the main note when producing vibrato. Keshet,I suggest using a slowing down software to analyze some violin recordings.You'd be surprise how many things you can hear. IMHO Keshet's statment "The human ear will hear the sharpest pitch as the tonal center of a vibrating note" is CORRECT. If you don't believe us perhaps you will believe Galamian from his book "Principles of Violin Playing & Teaching" quote: It is important that the vibrato always go to the flatted side of the pitch. The ear catches far more readily the highest pitch sounded, and a vibrato that goes as much above pitch as below makes the gneral intonation sound too sharp.... The vibrato should slightly lower the pitch by swinging first backward, and then should re-establish the correct pitch by its forward swing. And Bronstein states in his book "The Science of Violin Playing" quote: ...when playing with the wrist [vibrato] the initiating motion should be back, away from the body... BUT as always there are different schoolings of thought, different styles and different colorations that one could do with their vibrato. I'm a wrist/finger vibrato guy...and the key thing is to always have the wrist vibrato going back and away from you. one reason is for the pitch, another is for the physical technique of things... a lot of times when you hear that wobbly wrist vibrato its because the hand is coming too far forward. As for Szerng's Kreisler...to me...EVERYTHING on that recording is pretty sharp. I took a sample snippet off of the Preludium&Allegro, looped it and tracked it...the open E's with those bow strokes were tuned to roughly A444 (which really doesn't mean anything). Now even with that in account I hear the notes being STILL on the brighter/sharper side...and with your frequency analysis I can see what my ears are hearing.... "the ear hears the sharpest pitch as the tonal center.
  15. quote: Originally posted by: oldgeezer The pros minimize room effect in acoustic rooms by using foam and other sound absorbing materials on the walls and ceiling to get a very dead room. Even a small room with a lot of hard surfaces has a room effect from the reflected sound. That's why it's fun to sing in the shower and why I like to play the fiddle in a sun room with a lots of glass and a tile floor. You can eliminate a lot of room effect by recording where there are plenty of sound absorbing things like carpet, drapes and upholstered furniture. I like to put a microphone in a bedroom because there is plenty of sound absorbing stuff and it's big enough to put the microphone at a reasonable listening distance from the violin. You may find that your computer room isn't nearly as dead as you think it is. My computer room is not good for recording because I have a noisy computer fan plus a lot of hard surfaces to reflect sound. You'll have to experiment with microphone placement. It can really make a big difference just to reiterate..."dead" rooms are really a pop thing...they generally are not so good for classical. a lot of our sound doesn't really happen until you're several feet back from the violin...so you're already going to be getting a lot more room interaction vs. a "close-mic'd" pop track. in just about every classical music recording out there...you're hearing a lot of the natural room sound. this is one reason why omni mics are used a lot in classical recordings. omni's pick up sound equally from all directions like the human ear...so they will pick up a lot more of the room sound and room "space". that behringer ecm8000 mic is an omni. as far as reflections go, the most important thing to watch out for are reflective surfaces close to the mic itself. what will happen is the mic will pick up the direct sound...and then the reflected sound almost immediately after...the two soundwaves will start cancelling each other out at various frequencies...compromising the sound.
  16. Selim, keep us updated on how things turn out! With pop music and its multitracking...you generally (but not always) try to keep the room OUT of the equation...and then you add it back in with effects like reverb. With classical...the room...and the interaction of the instrument with the room...is a large part of the sound...generally no effects.
  17. the most important question...what is your budget? after that rank: portability simplicity quality reliability upgradability cost
  18. Yes that would work too...it opens up a totally different door of recording...the portable digital recorders. You have md recorders, cdr recorders, hd recorders, flash recorders, mp3 recorders....etc.etc. One downside to the md recorder you listed above is that it won't be easy to switch to a more "conventional" microphone. You'd generally be using those "walkman style" microphones. If you'd want compatability with more "standard" microphones look for digital recorders that offer xlr inputs and phantom power. (look to spend around $500 for such a unit) for example something like this: http://www.d-mpro.com/users/fo...rID=3629&Tab=Overview In terms of absolute ease of use they are about as easy as they get...not the most cost-effective stuff though. Marantz makes a bunch of different ones...as does sony...
  19. Michael: Yes that works and is even more inexpensive. For me it relies a bit too much on the soundcard that is already in the computer (usually pretty low quality) Plus one wouldn't generally be able to record in stereo using this method... Selim: Well with the $350+ mics you would still be able to use the setup I listed above...which would be Behringer microphone->xlr microphone cable->m-audio mobilepre->usb cable->computer. However when you're stepping up the quality of the mic you'd probably also want to step up the quality of your mic preamp/computer interface. A forum which caters to what you're looking for is homerecording.com.
  20. Selim, If you wanted to record to your computer... For the bare bones cheapest possible solution I'd say purchase a 1. Behringer ECM8000 mic. `$50 http://froogle.google.com/froo...0&btnG=Search+Froogle 2. M-Audio Mobilepre USB interface ~$150 http://www.musiciansfriend.com...r/Hardware?sku=701368 they're actually including an mxl990 mic with the mobilepre...which isn't really meant for a violin at all but you could give that a try since it's included w/the purchase. 3. microphone cable (xlr connectors) ...for something cheap but good i'd get this one: http://www.audiopile.net/produ...BQB/MBQB_cutsheet.asp if you're not picky any xlr microphone cable will do. disclaimer: i've never used an m-audio mobilepre, but it seems to work as an entry-level mic preamp/computer interface.
  21. quote: Originally posted by: outside someone else have advice, I am speaking as an observer, far from expert. 1. Humility and patience. Unlike a private teacher, you're often stuck with whatever coach you've got...even if their teaching style doesn't work for you, even if their overall musical approach/technique goes against your entire personal philosophy...sit there and take it willingly and with a genuine smile. It just plain stinks...I know...but in the long run it'll make your life a lot easier. Perhaps the only thing worse than an unbearable coach...is a quartet member that openly disagrees with the coach (even if the quartet member is right). In the professional world you are often hired not on your ability...but on how well the person likes you...and how easy you are to get along with. You're also going to work with many conductors and directors that you simply won't agree with either...so learn how to deal with it now. Even if you have world-class technique and interpretation...someone will find something that they don't like about you. It's best to learn what those things are now vs. later. Of course once you're performing out on stage...or you're confiding to your peers...all bets are off. Do whatever you want (with moderation...) 2. Constant metronome practice. Don't touch whatever piece you're playing without a metronome going. Up there with unbearable coaches and disagreeable quartet members...are musicians that don't have rock-solid rhythm. It doesn't matter if you have "good" rhythm. You need utterly dependable and precise rhythm. Constant metronome practice. Many will say it sucks the life out of the music...however...many of those same people are the ones that have lackluster rhythm. The most beautiful music is music done in time. Anything less and conductors/orchestras will not like working with you...and neither will your fellow quartet members. 3. Memorize your part. Sure you can play your part fine when you are relaxed and your mind is fully focused on reading the part. However things are usually not that ideal... Your coach is yelling at you. You are trying to apply the changes your coach is asking of you. You are worried what your coach is going to say. You are keeping track of everything your quartet members are playing. You're out on stage and the nerves are kicking in. Suddenly your mind is dealing with a lot more things and your reading/playing suffers. So get that part memorized. It'll free up some of your mind, and you'll play a lot better too in all conditions. edit: 4. Know your role in the music. Depending on which measure you are in...you will either be the melodic lead or the rhythmic lead...and everything inbetween. Think about the roles and purposes of each...in terms of dynamics and rhythm. The melodic lead is always listening down to the rhythmic lead...and vice versa. 5. Play with your right hand not your left. Many players are concerned with playing the right notes and being in tune. However most of the nuances of chamber music are dealt with the right hand, not the left. (another reason for memorizing your music) Many chamber music issues can be dealt with by altering what the right hand is doing.
  22. +1 to what MrLucky said. On this matter you'd all do well to listen to him. Good violin playing is all about energy conservation and efficiency. btw, don't believe for a moment that thumb-first shifting is necessary for those that play without shoulder rest.
  23. The impulse for the vibrato comes all the way back from your left shoulder blade. This comes from Isaac Stern btw. Imagine that your hand is a metal ball and that your arm is a rope. You wave the rope back and forth so that it will move the metal ball. This waviness represents the impulse that travels up your arm (not to be confused with arm vibrato) and the metal ball moving is your hand/wrist/finger vibrato. In this manner, basically your wrist is so loose that it falls back with no effort...and with an impulse it returns back. The vibrato is always going back, always away from you. Your finger joints are loose and will naturally flex/vibrate with the wrist. The key is zero effort on the part of the player. It relies on relaxation and requires almost no energy. I do not recommend an arm vibrato for two main reasons. 1. Violinists that rely on an arm vibrato usually cannot sustain it all the time...so it becomes an on-off vibrato. 2. It is EXTREMELY difficult to maintain an arm vibrato throughout one's violin lifetime (due to the muscle groupings involved). Because of this you have arm-vibrato violinists that switch to a wrist vibrato during their career....for example Arnold Steinhardt...but not vice versa. To me it boils down to this: you can have a world-class vibrato using your wrist/finger and you can use it for the rest of your life... For those that feel that no arm vibrato might handicap you stylistically...know that there is no one style that is good for everyone. Someone will always not like something about your playing no matter how world-class you are. I hope this helps.
  24. That's Fritz Reiner. He knew how to conduct. I think it was Stern that said he had the best baton technique of all the conductors he performed with... If you didn't follow his baton millimeter-by-millimeter he had no problems firing you on the spot. ...or firing you again for a second time if he happened to see you in another orchestra.
  25. For everyone tuning in to this thread... DSD = digital format used on SACD's. PCM = digital format used on CD's, DVD-A's...recording....just about everything really...etc.etc. quote: Originally posted by: Desert Rat "source->dsd (sacd)->pcm (cd) is MORE steps than source->pcm" Well, not exactly. One of the key differences in between DSD and PCM (CD) is in the conversion of the analog signal (live or from tape) to the digital domain. PCM requires the use of a "decimation" filter during the conversion, where every Nth sample is thrown out. DSD not only skips this filter... I'll try to keep this as non-technical as possible. The above statement is something that one hears quite often...unfortunately it comes from Sony's marketing spin. DSD uses filters...do not doubt that for a moment. The filter it uses is often different from PCM's...so Sony can conveniently spin the story that DSD skips PCM's "decimation filter..." (only to sometimes put it in later...more to follow) In the DSD chain is a noise-shaping modulator. DSD needs it to achieve its large dynamic range...without the modulator DSD would have a miniscule dynamic range. So right off the bat DSD isn't as pure as Sony would lead you to believe... Next, you cannot do any type of mastering in the 1-bit environment of DSD. In order to digitally mix AND/OR master DSD (virtually all releases are mastered) you either have to convert to PCM or a special format 8-bit DSD Wide. And to get it to that 8-bit DSD (or PCM) requires...guess what... a decimation filter!!! hmm...you don't hear Sony talking about *that* in their marketing.... Anyways because you need to convert DSD to digitally master it...is just one (of several) reasons why many SACD's come from PCM masters. Doubt that all you want...it's the way it is. INDEPENDENT of genre. quote: Also, DSD is not "essentially 1-bit PCM" (Pulse Code Modulation), as you assert. DSD is a marketing term invented by Sony/Philips for a type of SDM (Sigma-Delta Modulation) known as PDM (Pulse Density Modulation). It's a different animal. Actually just about all converters are sigma-delta (delta-sigma). Including the PCM ones. The essence of PCM is that you represent a waveform using binary words (bit depth) at a set rate. This applies for CD PCM...16bit words at 44.1k...or "DSD"...1bit words at 2.8M...or the industry recording standard (PCM) of 24bit at 96k (192, 384, etc.). It's confusing if you rely on Sony's marketing spin of things, but in essence DSD is a form of PCM. quote: "...another being that any sonic benefit above normal high bitrate pcm is often described as marginal at best. dsd is essentially 1-bit pcm after all..." If the sonic difference between CD and SACD is "marginal at best", then those are some pretty wide margins. I feel sorry for people who lack the hearing sensitivity to tell the difference - they must be missing out on a lot of the richness of live performances, as well. It tells me a lot when someone considers "high bitrate pcm" to mean "CD"... 16bit CD is NOT high bitrate. Someone truly familiar with audio engineering would know that. I was referring to 24bit "PCM"...24 bits is what we all record at anyways. (So in the future please don't also fall for that 24 bit mastering marketing lingo...sighs.) I apologize if the RIAA sales figures weren't good enough for some of you.. If ANYONE can come up with better concrete sales figures for SACD's please post them up. BTW fmfischer, those sales figures were for "all" CD's and SACD's covered by the RIAA...they were not specific to the classical genre. Anyways, this whole DSD/PCM thing has already been quite the topic within AES. Here's a link to a study which also came to the conclusion (as I stated...) These listening tests indicate, as a rule, no significant differences could be heard between DSD and high-resolution PCM...even with the best equipment, under optimal listening conditions... http://www.hfm-detmold.de/eti/...cm/aes_paper_6086.pdf quote: You're being flippant and more than a little childish. My suggestions to you: 1) Fire your fact-checker. 2) Lose the attitude. Rat ??? Sighs. This was never meant to be a mucky DSD vs. PCM thread. DSD will still be around. When it was originally conceived, afaik its main intention was not as a release format (SACD). That came around later. BTW Desertrat, you mentioned the lack of Telarc in RIAA sales. Telarc is probably one of the biggest SACD labels out there. And guess what, as per one of their recording engineers...Telarc would NOT be able to survive on their SACD sales...because the sales are NOT there...plus Telarc's president Bob Woods has even criticized Sony for not promoting SACD enough in the marketplace. fyi I do sound/audio engineering as part of my living...and I wanted to clarify certain misconceptions as I saw them. If these insights are unappreciated by consumers that's fine by me. also, i've noticed from past threads that you're really into quality sound...so I was serious when I was recommending that you pick up some great ribbons/ribbon hybrids...yes the genesis 1.1 are over-the-top but you can get a cheap and decent pair of magneplanars for a couple hundred.
×
×
  • Create New...