recording with headphones

[awjoe]

According to Wikipedia, Chris Thile is quoted as saying this of the recording of 'How to Grow a Woman from the Ground' (easily one of my favorite albums of all time):

"Everything was tracked live, and I’ve decided never to record wearing headphones again unless I absolutely have to. Wearing headphones is bullshit, because you’re in your own little world playing to a mix that no one will ever hear but you. What’s the point?"

I don't get this. What's wrong with headphones? I can see someone not wanting to overdub, but why not play with headphones? Surely he's confusing overdubbing with recording with headphones?

[Mike Senior]

According to Wikipedia, Chris Thile is quoted as saying this of the recording of 'How to Grow a Woman from the Ground' (easily one of my favorite albums of all time):

"Everything was tracked live, and I’ve decided never to record wearing headphones again unless I absolutely have to. Wearing headphones is bullshit, because you’re in your own little world playing to a mix that no one will ever hear but you. What’s the point?"

I don't get this. What's wrong with headphones? I can see someone not wanting to overdub, but why not play with headphones? Surely he's confusing overdubbing with recording with headphones?

No, I don't think he is. And I actually agree with him. With acoustic music, balance and immediacy are tremendously important, and you'll usually get better performances, with better internal balance, if you can keep headphones out of the picture. That aside, there are also issues of monitoring fidelity, latency, communication, and working speed to consider, because it's a rare session indeed where all of those can be dealt with ideally.

[The_BPP]

Peter Gabriel referred to headphones as being like "condoms for the ears", so Chris Thile isn't alone in his stance.

[molecular]

It must depend (perhaps obvs) on the kind of music you're recording, but if he's talking about any of his trad / bluegrass / quartet stuff, then the best musicians I have worked with would agree with him, and I'd be on board. I saw the punch brothers play in Glasgow all around one mic, it was incredible. If you can play like that, it must be great to just concentrate on making the recording experience as enjoyable as possible!

[Drew Stephenson]

There's a strong argument that musicians playing together without headphones do half the work the faders would do in a less open environment.

[awjoe]

Got it. Thanks, you guys. And for the record, here's what triggered this for me:

chris thile tiny desk

He's awesome, and the band is convinced. When everybody's giving their full attention and credence to what's happening, the very best music has a chance to happen.

[oneflightup]

great thread.

when cans are necessary, you can always do the "half on half off" thing and keep one ear open to the room. or just use a set (?!) of single-sided headphones...

Nick

[Mike Senior]

Got it. Thanks, you guys. And for the record, here's what triggered this for me:

chris thile tiny desk

Crumbs. Makes you want to weep for joy that such players exist. And weep for shame that so much money was thrown at that Elvis orchestral record instead.

[Drew Stephenson]

Bloody hell that's good. :¬)

[ConcertinaChap]

Agreed. I could listen to them for significant amounts of time.

CC

[Exalted Wombat]

Got it. Thanks, you guys. And for the record, here's what triggered this for me:

chris thile tiny desk

He's awesome, and the band is convinced. When everybody's giving their full attention and credence to what's happening, the very best music has a chance to happen.

Yes, it would be ridiculous to "track" this sort of thing rather than simply capturing a live performance. Whether the players self-mix on a single mic or still perform acoustically but have the benefit of some mix-tweaking isn't really important. I thought the balance on the first song worked well, but around 12.45 the vocals were getting a bit overwhelmed.

[Tim Gillett]

The problem here is that we have no reference. OK the sound, the balance, is great but compared to what?

Obviously not the same group, song or performance but here's a different approach. (sorry the YT is terribly file compressed. DVD sound is much nicer).
Almost all using headphones but apparently not for overdubbing. Were they really making it more difficult for themselves? Why would they do that?
Obviously they are in a larger room and more spread apart but even so.

https://youtu.be/GEsU45U3qWg

[Drew Stephenson]

I guess it probably comes down to what you're comfortable with (I notice one of the group didn't have phones) and what you're trying to achieve.

[molecular]

The problem here is that we have no reference. OK the sound, the balance, is great but compared to what?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here... The only meaningful comparison would be what the Punch Brothers would have sounded like doing the tiny desk gig with cans on, isn't it?

I think that watching them play, it's not rocket science that they wouldn't want to, and personally speaking I lack the imagination, the experience or the bluegrass chops to be able to see how a small acoustic group could possibly perform much better than that.

If you have something to compare them to that would leave the Punch Brothers anything short of "great", I'd really like to know what!

[ConcertinaChap]

I can only offer my experience here, which is mostly with folkies who have not recorded before, or not recorded very much. I try and make the recording as much like performing in a folk club as possible. OK, they have to sing into mics which they may not be used to (most of the local clubs don't use PA) but I can work them up to that. What is alien to them would be wearing headphones and/or using click tracks and similar stuff. If I try any of that on them the quality of the performance suffers. If they want to double-track then they can see the point of headphones and they'll work with them. Other than that, no, definitely no.

Recording's easy compared to getting performers (at least, my performers) comfortable enough to give a good performance. That's my priority.

CC

[Tim Gillett]

The problem here is that we have no reference. OK the sound, the balance, is great but compared to what?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here... The only meaningful comparison would be what the Punch Brothers would have sounded like doing the tiny desk gig with cans on, isn't it?

I think that watching them play, it's not rocket science that they wouldn't want to, and personally speaking I lack the imagination, the experience or the bluegrass chops to be able to see how a small acoustic group could possibly perform much better than that.

If you have something to compare them to that would leave the Punch Brothers anything short of "great", I'd really like to know what!

There is more than one factor here. The musical performance is of course very good but we were talking about the sound, the balance. Performing around one mic is simple, uncluttered onstage and the video camera guys and the audience have much clearer sightlines.

Also the performers can alter the volume of the instruments and voices by simply walking forward or back. Potentially that's a huge advantage. But the downside of that is the performers dont actually know whether they are too close or far from the mic. They cant hear the effect. It's sort of self mixing by footsteps, not by sound, not by actually hearing that dynamic mix. Done well it requires a lot of discipline and rehearsal. A local band Bluegrass Parkway does a pretty good job of it. But's it still a huge compromise. If you move forward to do a vocal solo, your instrument comes with you and it gets louder in the mix as well. What do you do about that?

The principle of raising and lowering the volume of individual instruments and vocals when it comes to their solo is spot on. I play in bands where even some of the performers dont understand this. Who do they think is going to turn them up for solos and back down again after they have finished their solo? The sound guy who doesnt know the music and has had no rehearsal? (And perhaps understandably the sound guy is expecting the musos to do their own self mixing.) So in the end the job never gets done. The FOH sound becomes a mush with no clarity of instrument where it's needed. I have countless hours of soundboard recordings going back many years. All have this same mix problem.

In the AK video the reason for the headphones is not really for self mixing - it's being multitracked - so much as hearing each other and themselves clearly and intimately. It can be a completely different personal monitor mix for each performer, and under each muso's individual control. Then multitracking the live performance allows the most subtle attention to balance later on.

In the PB performance they cant hear themselves or the others live nearly as well as in the AK setup. Not talking about self mixing for the mic here, just hearing their performance.

But on top of that, PB are self mixing around a mic that they cant hear. No way can either the sound be as clear, or the mix be as nuanced as in the AK setup. Sure the AK studio setup is hellishly complex and the process longwinded, and the video guys probably hate all the clutter and sightline problems. But that complexity is the only way to allow that level of sonic clarity, subtlety and balance.

Sure there's a clarity that comes from a simple mic setup. But very difficult to have all those performers optimally placed before the one mic, both voice and instrument. As somebody on another forum said about this video, this sort of self mixing in front of one mic could perhaps be done with IEM's, allowing real self monitoring. I dont know though. Perhaps others have tried it.

The PB video shows a great engaging performance before a very small, enthusiastic live audience.
But turn off the picture and listen to just the sound. Could it have sounded better? Could it have been mixed better?

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul11/a ... t-0711.htm

[oneflightup]

I can only offer my experience here, which is mostly with folkies who have not recorded before, or not recorded very much. I try and make the recording as much like performing in a folk club as possible. OK, they have to sing into mics which they may not be used to (most of the local clubs don't use PA) but I can work them up to that. What is alien to them would be wearing headphones and/or using click tracks and similar stuff. If I try any of that on them the quality of the performance suffers. If they want to double-track then they can see the point of headphones and they'll work with them. Other than that, no, definitely no.

Recording's easy compared to getting performers (at least, my performers) comfortable enough to give a good performance. That's my priority.

CC

Wise words CC.

[Exalted Wombat]

The principle of raising and lowering the volume of individual instruments and vocals when it comes to their solo is spot on. I play in bands where even some of the performers dont understand this. Who do they think is going to turn them up for solos and back down again after they have finished their solo? The sound guy who doesnt know the music and has had no rehearsal? (And perhaps understandably the sound guy is expecting the musos to do their own self mixing.) So in the end the job never gets done. The FOH sound becomes a mush with no clarity of instrument where it's needed. I have countless hours of soundboard recordings going back many years. All have this same mix problem.

That is precisely why monitoring should assist performers in assessing what is going out front, then it is their responsibility to play a little louder while soloing, a lot quieter when not. You know - that thing musicians do when playing in an ensemble.

[Tim Gillett]

The principle of raising and lowering the volume of individual instruments and vocals when it comes to their solo is spot on. I play in bands where even some of the performers dont understand this. Who do they think is going to turn them up for solos and back down again after they have finished their solo? The sound guy who doesnt know the music and has had no rehearsal? (And perhaps understandably the sound guy is expecting the musos to do their own self mixing.) So in the end the job never gets done. The FOH sound becomes a mush with no clarity of instrument where it's needed. I have countless hours of soundboard recordings going back many years. All have this same mix problem.

That is precisely why monitoring should assist performers in assessing what is going out front, then it is their responsibility to play a little louder while soloing, a lot quieter when not. You know - that thing musicians do when playing in an ensemble.

I agree Wombat but it can be a difficult thing in a live situation. For example in a trio I play in we have to self mix FOH. The FOH speakers are not that far in front of us so we hear a lot of bass "wash" from them. We know we are hearing an exagerrated low end but as to how much at any given time can only be a guesstimate. Lovely when we have a good sound guy mixing from right there in the audience who knows his stuff and hears what the audience hears.

[molecular]

There is more than one factor here. The musical performance is of course very good but we were talking about the sound, the balance.

I think Chris Thile's point in the original OP was probably actually to do with the performance. He was talking about tracking with headphones on, and how it isolates musicians and affects his ability to perform.

I'm sure we can all agree that it's "horses for courses", but...

turn off the picture and listen to just the sound. Could it have sounded better? Could it have been mixed better?

... I think it sounds the way it sounds. Bloody amazing! If they want to perform that way, then that is how their art form sounds. Personally I would much rather listen to that than those tracks they've done that have clearly been made in a more "mixable" way, which to my ear have ended up drifting towards a "mumfordy" mush. I really appreciate the gentle coming and going of the live set up.

In the PB performance they cant hear themselves or the others live nearly as well as in the AK setup. Not talking about self mixing for the mic here, just hearing their performance.

Sorry, but I think that's just wrong, or at least my experience is the opposite so I don't think we can say that about PB. In a setup like that I've always found it much easier to hear everything without headphones on, and it's been the same for most musicians I've recorded.

The PB video shows a great engaging performance before a very small, enthusiastic live audience.

Well, you're right of course, that it takes practice and is a bold move, but I've also seen them do it in front of a thousand people in Glasgow for a whole gig and it was perfect... I don't know what the conclusion form that is, other than that I think that their sound and their performance need to be taken as a whole, and taken as a whole it seems fairly obvious that there is nothing wrong with it.

[molecular]

Just as an aside to that... having worked on / attended a couple of similarish things, is what we're watching in the Alison Krauss video what we're hearing? It doesn't have much bearing on anyone's points, just wondering what the source programme is and how it's made, if anyone knows.

[Exalted Wombat]

On a live gig, certainly the musicians know better than any sound guy when they need to "step forward" musically, when to pull back. But achieving this through literally stepping up to a single mic is a blunt instrument, particularly where a vocalist also plays an instrument. In fact, it's almost a given that a featured singer won't simultaneously be playing a featured instrument part. We can do better in a recording.

This is nothing to do with wearing headphones at the session, of course. They can still set up acoustically. Just have a microphone (or two) each. Anyway, it's a pity to restrict a recording to mono, even if it can't be true stereo, just pan-potted multi-mono.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Anyway, it's a pity to restrict a recording to mono, even if it can't be true stereo, just pan-potted multi-mono.

There's no reason why the 'single mic' approach has to force a mono recording. It works just as well (or as poorly, depending on your viewpoint) with a single-bodied XY stereo mic or a SoundField.

H

[Mike Senior]

I can only offer my experience here, which is mostly with folkies who have not recorded before, or not recorded very much. I try and make the recording as much like performing in a folk club as possible. OK, they have to sing into mics which they may not be used to (most of the local clubs don't use PA) but I can work them up to that. What is alien to them would be wearing headphones and/or using click tracks and similar stuff. If I try any of that on them the quality of the performance suffers. If they want to double-track then they can see the point of headphones and they'll work with them. Other than that, no, definitely no.

Recording's easy compared to getting performers (at least, my performers) comfortable enough to give a good performance. That's my priority.

What he said.

[Tim Gillett]

In the PB performance they cant hear themselves or the others live nearly as well as in the AK setup. Not talking about self mixing for the mic here, just hearing their performance.

Sorry, but I think that's just wrong, or at least my experience is the opposite so I don't think we can say that about PB. In a setup like that I've always found it much easier to hear everything without headphones on, and it's been the same for most musicians I've recorded.

Do you mean recording a live acoustic performance before an audience such as in the PB video?
But the musos hearing each other (and themselves) optimally is a different issue from making an optimal recording. So just talking about the musos hearing each other optimally...

Each of us only has two ears, stuck to the sides of our heads.

A fiddler's instrument normally is played very close to the player's ears, meaning it will normally be much louder for him compared to what he hears of the other musos, and what they hear of his fiddle. Is that natural?

Similarly a guitarist's acoustic instrument sits much lower on the body and apart from the lower notes, projects out and in front of the player. Generally other musos standing in front will hear the instrument clearer than does the player himself. Is that natural?

And a vocalist does not hear their own voice nearly as clearly as someone else does standing in front of them. Partly why when we first hear a good playback of our own voice we can be shocked. But that's how others hear us! Is that natural?

Going back centuries musos playing in groups have had to learn to cope with far less than optimal balances for listening and performing. It's a set of physical and human limitations. All musicians have had to try and cope with it as best they can.

Sure, playing without mics and monitors is "natural" but an "is" does not make an "ought". Just because it's natural does not make it optimal.

Tim