Can you talk a little about how you got into recording engineering? Did you start out as a musician or engineer?
Both actually, but at first I didn't combine the two. I lived in Switzerland at that time. I came to the U.S. when I was 28. I had built an amplifier that didn't work, so I went to the local hi-fi guru [Freddy Whettler] in Zurich to ask him what was wrong with it. He looked at it and said, well, you have to ground it here, you have to do this, you have to do that... Then it worked — we became friends and he became my boss. He was very much involved in recordings and building equipment. We started out on wire recorders, editing by knotting the wires together, then progressed to the Magnecorders — that was a mono machine. It was sent by a company in New York for us to record in Europe for them. The company was MMS [Music Masterpiece Society]. We called it Music Murder Society. [laughs] That was the reason everything started to roll, because my boss was so mad about what they were doing with equalizers in the States (basically boosting mid-range to sound better on cheap equipment). He didn't spare any words about that.
When was this?
1955. They wanted to fire him and put me in his place. I didn't want that — he was my mentor and friend. I called Vanguard here [in New York] because I knew their recordings. At first I wrote but I didn't get any answers. Then I called Seymour Solomon, who was the head of Vanguard. He told me, "Well, I'll be in Vienna. Come over and we'll see." That's how I became assistant producer and engineer at Vanguard. In '65 I left Vanguard and started Elite Recordings.
So you trained mostly with your mentor in Switzerland?
The technical part, yes, but I already had a musical background. He was a technical wizard — we complimented each on the musical side, overlapping on the technical side. That's also the way I worked when later, Joanna Nickrenz joined in '69. We both were producing and I was engineering. It slowly overlapped since she was doing all the editing, so I said if you're doing all the editing you might as well produce.
How have your recording techniques evolved over such a long career in classical work? How, for example, did you mic up the early Vanguard sessions?
Even before that, the idea was, to be as faithful to the score as possible and not try to gimmick things up. And that led to essentially two mic pickups for stereo and possibly some reinforcement. But keeping in mind that you have two ears, two microphones are what you need for stereo. In other words, not to flatten out the stage by having all sorts of microphones in the orchestra, bringing everything forward. The back of the orchestra is not meant to be heard up close.
In a recording, do you try to present an ideal audience perspective, say in the center of the 12th row?
To a certain extent, yes. But keeping in mind that a recording is a recording, and there are a couple of things that you have to take into consideration. You don't have visual contact with the artist on stage. But in essence I'm trying to get as good as possible a sound, say fourth or fifth row, about ten feet up, so that you have an overview of the orchestra.
Did you experiment with many stereo main pairs before settling on what you have now?
I have used the same microphones since 1960. And so far I have not found better ones.
The Schoeps 221s [with the 934 capsule]?
Yes. I have nine other Schoeps CM60s that I use for reinforcement, and they have essentially the same sound. Even in Europe, I was using Schoeps. I knew Schoeps personally in Karlsruhe, my boss was a friend of his, and ever since, I've been using the same mic. I've tried others, but for one reason or another I'd give up on them. There's another very famous microphone that we used on a session in L.A. for Johann Christian Bach's "Harpsichord Concerto", with solo and continuo-harpsichord in the orchestra. With the Schoeps I had the perfect balance. With the other mics next to them, you couldn't even hear the continuo-harpsichord...
Balancing that instrumentation is a difficult task...
Yes. I mean physics is physics — sound pressure diminishes by the square of the distance. But for some reason these Schoeps microphones have much deeper reach.
Did you always use omnis in spaced pairs? Did you try ORTF or coincident setups?
I just don't like the sound of cardioid microphones. To me it sounds tubby, like hooting into a barrel, especially on piano. I get a much more satisfying sound picture with the omnis. Of course that depends on the acoustics of the hall — most of the time we don't have a choice with the hall. We go where the orchestras are. Then I have to adapt my technique to the specific quirks of the hall.
Some people who support ORTF, NOS or Blumlein over-spaced omnis argue that the AB pair creates an exaggerated image, despite the wide bandwidth.
But that's how you space the microphones. If you want the early days of stereo, having the express train roaring from one side to the other, that's one thing. But if you have the distance between the mics such that you don't have the tennis effect — I'm perfectly satisfied with what I'm getting with the AB setup. It sounds the most natural for the depth and width of the stage.
Do you alter your setup and positioning much between orchestra and chamber sessions?
Well, yes and no. You bring the mics closer. But most recordings I've heard lately in classical, specifically, are recorded too close. It's probably a spin-off of super high fidelity, where you have to hear every scratch, but it's not musical. I try to have my distance and let the sound develop before it reaches the mic.
What would be a typical setup for an orchestra?
It depends on the size of the orchestra and the hall, but I would say four mics in front, with the outer mics panned in slightly and whatever reinforcement mics I need. The better a composition is orchestrated, the fewer mics I need. Each additional mic is essentially a crutch. But sometimes you have to — for instance if the bassoon is playing a passage with the cello and you don't hear the bassoon, you have to do something about it or reseat them.
How often do you balance the sound by reseating musicians or raising them on platforms instead of moving microphones?
It happens. First of all, of course, you talk it over with the conductor. Usually if we know each other, you have carte blanche to do that. What I do very often is put the harp in the violin section (between first and second) to avoid having a mic on the harp — it still has the distance [to the main mics]. It depends entirely on the score.
What were you recording onto in those days? Nagra or Stellavox?
I had a Stellavox. Actually I have serial number two. I used that just for the National Geographic field recordings — but essentially Ampex and Scully machines. Eventually Scully 4-track for ambience recording — not as four channel recording, but in case I need more ambience I can mix it in. And that has come in handy today because these recordings can be released in surround.
That's a lot of lifting work! Ampex's so- called "portable" recorder was two heavy cases.
Yeah — it had handles! The board has also shrunk. I had the Studer [model 169]. It's got a large handle — it's "portable," but it's heavy! Now I use Mackies and they are fine, even without a handle.
You have always mixed live to 2-track at the session?
Yes. I set balances when the orchestra is warming up, then I would ask the conductor for specific passages, a good fortissimo, for example, or some relevant passage in the score. Within a few minutes I'd have my balance. But I can only do this on headphones.
You never used speakers to monitor?
No, although we do set up monitor speakers. I don't believe in monitors because they sound different in every room you go. Besides you hear any movement on the faders immediately with headphones. With the speakers you have too many distractions, people moving around and talking...
Have you stuck with the same head- phones as well?
No, no. With the mics being constant, the headphones got better and better. I used to have the Beyer DT- 48, which I thought was the cat's last meow. Then came the Sony DR-26 and now I'm using some other Sonys. To make a loudspeaker that's as flat as the headphones is almost impossible, but these come quite close I must say. [Innersound Kachina monitors that were just being installed at Elite.]
You're not bothered by the discrepancy in imaging with the headphones?
I compensate for that.
Did you ride the levels much during recording?
Generally no, except for aging voices that have a strong output in the middle, but very little above and below. That's fine with me, it's a natural limitation.
So you never used limiting during recording?
No, never. I have used limiting in disc cutting, vertical limiting, so the groove doesn't thin out below a half a mil. But you don't hear that — it's a temporary narrowing of the bass frequencies to prevent the pickup from jumping out of the groove. But that was done very carefully at the cutting session by doing test cuts and looking through the microscope. My aim is to preserve the full dynamic range on the recordings. That was why I was so overwhelmed when Dolby came, because it meant a 10 dB wider signal to noise ratio.
When did you start recording to digital?
1982, I think. With the Sony F-1 [still sitting on Marc's desk]. Then came the JVC 900, which is now a boat anchor, but cost $65,000! I've never touched it since workstations became available — the editing was horrendous. You have to copy from one tape to another and synchronize the machines so that they could cut at the same spot. So every edit rehearsal was very time consuming. It was a spin-off of video technology that had nothing to do with audio. Then came DAT of course. Lately I'm recording directly onto hard disc using the U.K. Sadie system.
When you first moved from the Scully to the F-1, did you find what came off the tape to be much different?
You hear any flaws a lot better on any digital format, because the hiss is not there. I was also the first one to use Dolby A. For me, that was a wonderful breakthrough because I was constantly fighting dynamic range versus noise, and when Ray Dolby came up with his system, I bought it right out of his hands. I subsequently became the vice president of Dolby, importing and servicing them. That's why I had to hire Joanna, I couldn't ride both horses. She was out of a job. I said, "You'd be a fabulous editor." She said, "What's that?" [laughs] I said, "Come by and I'll show you." That was the beginning of 32 years of working together. Sadly Joanna passed away in 2002 due to lung cancer. I am now again wearing both hats, as I did before we worked together.
Do you feel like there have been distinct improvements in digital recording as you move from system to system?
In theory, yes. But practically it doesn't make much difference. Sure, if you listen to something pianissississimo and crank it up, you would hear a difference in background noise, but then you couldn't play anything at mezzo forte.
I think one of the distinct aspects in this regard with your work is that there's nearly no processing at all after the recording is done, so very little degradation happens in the digital domain, compared to what happens to a track on a typical pop production.
Yes, there is no post-mixing. And I keep control of the whole thing from beginning to the master. Once I have the master no one can touch it.
I wanted to ask you a bit about mastering. With vinyl mastering it was a real art form dealing with the depth and spacing of the grooves in real time...
I did that quite a bit. A friend of mine, Claude Rie, had a place called International Recording. He had a Neumann lathe and Ortofon cutter head. He became ill and I filled in for him, then he died. So for about two years I was moonlighting as a mastering engineer. This was in '65-'67. We did many Westminster cuttings, and [Vaughn Meader's] The First Family Kennedy record. The sales dropped to zero after the assassination, but before that it was a nationwide hit. I was cutting masters all day, to be shipped to different plating companies.
Most of the Nonesuch recordings I have of yours were cut by Bob Ludwig at Sterling. Did you attend the mastering sessions at the time?
No, because I trusted him to cut flat. I know him quite well. He was once told to cut bass on one of my recordings. Tracy Sterne, who was running Nonesuch at that time, had instructed him to do so without telling me because Paul Jacobs, the pianist on the record, complained that it was much too bass-heavy. I got absolutely mad when I heard about it. I went to Paul Jacobs' house, and lo-and-behold, he had the bass control all the way up on his amplifier! That's the problem with having bass control on amplifiers. I am delivering as flat, as neutral a product as I can. What you do with it at home is your problem. That's the only time I had to interfere with Ludwig — he was very cooperative. In any case, no matter what, when you receive a tape for mastering to vinyl, you cut it flat — unless specified by the producer that you're allowed to use a Pultec or lateral limiter.
Were you happy with the translation to vinyl from the master?
Well, the limitations were with the LP itself — the material it's pressed on, we called them "Rice Crispies" [laughs], with the pops and clicks and all that. But the sound quality using high-grade vinyl, in an AB comparison with a master was virtually identical — except for the inside diameter, where you have to boost the highs for velocity reasons, had a little more distortion. But good vinyl still today can sound very good.
That's how I came to know your work. One of my favorite recordings is the Varèse LP by The Contemporary Chamber Ensemble. The dynamic range on it is incredible, and that music really demanded it.
I think I recorded that one at 30 ips, one of the few. Because of the sharp transients, with the bells struck with hammers, you needed the high speed for that.
So you usually recorded at 15 ips?
Yes, 15 ips with Dolby A.
Did you have to take any specific technical measures to achieve the wide dynamics you captured? Did you use the stock Studer preamps or do modifications?
In the Ampex we had to do that, there was not enough headroom so it was heavily modified. Then came Scully, and we had enough headroom. There are better machines than the Scully but they are very fickle. I would have loved to use Studers, but they were less reliable than these workhorses like the Scully. If I'm at an orchestral session and this wonderful, precise machine decides to go belly up, I'm stuck.
Did you use a backup deck?
Usually we recorded on two Scullys. That is also true for any digital format.
Are there other engineers whose work you are fond of?
[Jack] Renner from Telarc, comes to mind. We've been on several panels together, found out that we have very similar ideas about balance, room acoustics and all that. Also, Tony Faulkner in London.
To me, your approach is sort of a natural progression from Bob Fine and those Mercury Living Presence recordings, with one to three mics...
Yes, Mercury, that's right — even going back further to the Columbia blue label in the U.K. on 78s.
Did you listen to say, the RCA or Columbia 30th Street recordings?
I knew it, not consciously studying it. But sometimes I'd listen in preparation for a session, to see what I'd like to do similarly or differently. And in essence, what I'd like to do differently is not to highlight certain instruments.
Let's talk a little about halls. Obviously we don't usually get to pick them, but what do you look for in a hall?
I look for a fast decline and long tail out. In other words, the tail out shouldn't jumble up the main picture. It should ring out, but not interfere with the direct sound. That's hard to find, and it's almost always a shoebox hall, like the Boston Symphony Hall and Vienna Musikverein. I don't know exactly why, but they sound best for recording or performance. Today's halls are too short (from stage to back wall) and too high because of real estate prices, so the sound cannot develop. But sometimes you're stuck with it. That's why I started using microphones, to mix in ambience sound — cardioids pointing away from the stage at ceilings and walls. There are a couple of halls where I needed them, Cincinnati, for instance. Other halls you don't. St. Louis, Powell Hall — until they so-called "fixed" it — was an ideal hall for recordings. But the musicians complained that they couldn't hear each other, so they deadened the hall and that ruined it for us. It's still good, but it's not what it used to be. The more the musicians complain that they can't hear each other, the better for us. [laughs] Because it means there's a certain liveness to it, which for them, blocks it out for other players. But for us, it lingers on, it rings out. So when they complain that they can't hear each other, I think, "Ahhhh... good." [laughs]
Are there any favorite recordings that you've done?
Oh good god. I think yeah, I would say for instance the Ravel set with [Stanislaw] Skrowaczewski [Boléro. Pavane for a Dead Princess. Rapsodie Espagnole. La Valse.]. That became a sort of cult recording for a very good reason, actually. A critic panned me — that it sounded like a big wash of sound. For me that was a compliment — it's exactly what I wanted, the idea that Ravel and the conductor wanted — to have this overwhelming sound picture, and not individual sound sources. It was done in quad — there's a choir that's supposed to sound in the distance, and so I did that. I put the choir in the back of the hall, and recorded them with the ambience microphones. The choir sounds nice and distant, especially in quad, it sounds quite good. That was actually the first recording in the new hall in Minnesota. Nobody knew how it would sound. Then came "Alborada del Gracioso". Just where the percussion sets up you get an echo, backslap from the opposite wall of the stage back to the stage. It was rather disconcerting, because in "Boléro", the ghost snare drum goes with it. I talked to Cyril Harris, who developed the acoustics there. He said, "Why don't you try to bring the orchestra forward one step at a time?" I said, "That's great, but you lose the strings and the conductor because they'll fall overboard." He said, "I had the public in mind, not recordings." He did the same thing here at Avery Fisher, with the hardback walls — you have the possibility of one flute covering virtually the whole string section. But, this hall has been fixed so many times it's not funny. I wish I had a fraction of one percent of the cost they've put in fixing it. Another favorite is Alexander Nevsky by Prokofiev, with Leonard Slatkin and Saint Louis Symphony and Choir.
Can you talk a little about the decline in the classical recording business...
The recording industry always relied on the sales of pop material to pull the engine. That's what brought in the revenue, therefore they could afford to have a classical label. But the classical labels, except for one, never made any money. If you sell 5000 a year, you're doing well. But you sell it for ten, twenty years, it's sort of evergreen. Whereas in pop you have a big flash and it's gone... Vox had the genius idea at that time to use the so-called media guarantee. The orchestras in their contract were paid a certain amount of money, whether it was used up or not, for public performances, broadcast, etc. And it put Cincinnati, St. Louis, Minnesota, Baltimore, Atlanta, on the map. St. Louis became known as the number two orchestra in the US due to the recordings. And there's outsourcing. I've gone out to the Czech republic to do producing and engineering. The orchestra there has a $5000 flat rate including recording, editing and all — I can't compete with that. That is happening more and more, going to Bulgaria, Romania, and especially Riga. What's happening now is what happened after the war, where people were going to Vienna and Hungary to record because the rates were low. But the end product suffered. A recording session in this country, for a 4- hour session, costs you over $35,000, and you need two to three sessions for a CD. But then it is well rehearsed and has been performed. It "sits."
Anything else you want to add about the current state of recording?
The current state of recording is unfortunately rather dormant. It is probably due to a mix of several reasons. For one, a substantial chunk of income for the recording industry is missing due to widespread downloading of the very material that used to finance classical recordings. Although concerts are generally well attended, they become more and more unaffordable for a younger generation. The wages paid to soloists, orchestral musicians and conductors are the cause of these ever escalating prices for even more modest seats. This younger generation of parents would be vital for passing on an enthusiasm and understanding for classical music to their children. Unfortunately they themselves had only limited exposure to the music that has lasted and survived hundreds of years. Schools are not doing their share either, as they used to in earlier years. When [Leonard] Bernstein gave his lectures for young people in the '50s and '60s, entire school classes would fill the concert halls (by the way, they are available on DVD again, highly recommended). As mentioned before, outsourcing is another factor, why we are putting ourselves out of business for recordings done in this country. No American orchestra today is under contract with a major US label. The only activity comes from smaller labels, as the big labels such as BMG/Sony are more interested in crossover recordings, where they can recoup their investments. But there is hope — BMG announced a revival of projects to come. We shall see.
