Group: Super Admins
Joined: Dec. 1999
||Posted: Jan. 28 2017, 09:15
|Quote (Yann @ Jan. 28 2017, 03:52)|
|So you're telling me that Mike in his house got a better sound that a whole professional team got in the original Ommadawn... because Mike said so.|
I'm telling you that Mike in his 2017 house thinks he got a better sound than Mike in his 1975 house...and putting the point out for debate. Perhaps I was a bit unclear in how I put things across - I do hear what I think you're hearing (and possibly a few things you've not mentioned yet...), but I felt like it might be interesting to explore the possible reasons a bit deeper...
As to why not use egg boxes...it depends on the material, they can have some effect at some frequencies, particularly in terms of breaking up certain reflections, but their thickness means it's really a very limited range in which they're effective. You can sometimes cause more problems with them than they solve. It was a common thing for amateur studios, certainly - because they looked like the treatments that some bigger studios were using - but at least the really great early studios which I've been able to examine closely were using much more precise methods of acoustic treatment. Of course, as may have really been your point, if the album comes out OK, is there any reason to care whether the treatment was theoretically correct or not?
I'd say it's only really an issue as far as that people do still follow these ideas in the hope of improving their recordings, so it's nice for us to really explore why a recording has turned out a certain way. I don't believe, for example, that Mike covering his current recording spaces with egg boxes would yield a recording that sounds like Ommadawn, for example.
I was being slightly facetious about the egg boxes really, but my point was that The Beacon wasn't any more of a professionally designed recording space than Mike's current spaces but that they achieved a result that at least I rather like...
I think that's encouraged you to hit the nail on the head though - the team. At least in the later stages of recording Ommadawn, Phil Newell was at The Beacon, so Mike mixed it with his input, which I think was a very valuable thing. I get the impression that Mike sees Ommadawn as something he did predominantly on his own, whereas my impression from talking to and reading accounts from people who worked on it is that it was actually quite a collaborative effort. That's not to say Mike wasn't the captain of the ship, but rather that he wasn't sailing single-handedly.
I think Return to Ommadawn shares a lot in common with Mike's other recent mixes. There's stuff there which, if I'd been presented with that material to mix, I really wouldn't have done...but Mike would probably find issues with my mixes too. That, of course, is actually what I think is a key to success - acknowledging that none of us are totally infallible, and seeking external input into our work.
It's an interesting question though, really, that of what the 'right' choice is in a work like this. As I said before, there are things that aren't really to my taste, and they clearly aren't to yours...but yet Mike seems to feel like he's realised his intent with it, and a lot of listeners are loving it...so how are we to go forward from here?