Indian Music Forums

Best sounding sitar recordings MELODIC INSTRUMENTS
Reply
1,932 posts Aanaddha 1,932 posts
Aanaddha
Carter439 wrote:
Im listening to Raag Jhinjhoti by budhaditya mukherjee and his playing sound just like 70's VK. Whats with players today?
Artists like RS, NB, VK, Bismillah K, AAK, Ram Narayan, Hariprasad, all did their own thing. They stuck their necks out, took risks, persisted, and believed that time and practice, not the audience, would be the ultimate judge. Now with so many more recordings and fewer educated 'listeners', it's easier and faster to 'succeed' with audiences by simply borrowing someone else's thing. As cool as I am to Shahid Parvez and even Zakir at times, I give them both much credit for developing their own approach and uniquely significant styles. Perhaps we give far too much credit to artists who claim a certain well-known style or influence all too-often. (IMO - here is a significant difference between deep artistic creativity, personal style and philosophy, and mindless pastiche.)

Nimbus recording techniques are obviously well-designed to replicate a western-style concert hall or music chamber - not necessarily the most ideal, advantageous, or authentic setting for ICM music or instruments.

Also - some degree of perceived 'recording quality', in fact, depends on the quality and setting of playback equipment and speakers. There is a WIDE difference between listening on high-end headphones with a dedicated amp and your common PC stereo desk speakers and effects-ridden commercial PC soundcard.
If he could sing, and nature to accompany him, what need would he have for an instrument?
Reply 0 0
rex 674 posts
rex
daniel_f wrote:
I generally dislike Nimbus recordings, though...
I'm curious about what other people think of the Nimbus recordings, and wonder if anyone knows what the techniques or philosophy was used in miking them?

When I first heard them, I loved the open, spacy sound and thought it really captured a very special atmosphere and the acoustics of the instruments. Now though, I've listened to some of then again after very many years, they sound thin and lifeless and the instruments completely lack any presence. It's as if the musicians were recorded from a microphone placed at the back of a huge cavernous hall... it just sounds like poor recording...??

I know it can't be, so what do think the rationale for this might be? Was the spacy, ultra-acoustic sound what they were going for?
Reply 0 0
ragamala Senior Member 1,744 posts
ragamala
rex@sitar.co.za wrote:
daniel_f wrote:
I generally dislike Nimbus recordings, though...
I'm curious about what other people think of the Nimbus recordings, and wonder if anyone knows what the techniques or philosophy was used in miking them?
I know nothing about studio technique-

In another thread I think I said these Nimbus recordings were in general "dry" to me.

So having played a couple more etc I think yes Nimbus deserve credit for placing live concert-length recordings in front of us but the sound is detailed but distant.

It's like viewing an opera through binoculars. The detail is there, the warmth and the passion and the personal interaction is absent. Unless you create your own.

Listening again to a couple of these recordings, sarangi, Ram Narayan, I can understand a bit more why some comments have arisen such as sarangi is a like hearing cello underwater... It just doesn't approximate to a live experience. Dry or wet.

This is particularly unfortunate in my view re RN in that his concert experiences are the most illuminating, approachable and exhilarating introductions to the instrument.
Reply 0 0
rex 674 posts
rex
Thanks Raagmala!

I'm glad I'm not alone. Yes, your analogy of the experience as being like watching opera through binoculars is very apt.

I'm sure this was deliberate on the part of the Nimbus team... I just wonder why..?

There is an of overall beauty in the ambient acoustics of the sound of these recordings, but they've sacrificed the presense and fullness of the instruments, which are so important in such a personal artform.
Reply 0 0
trippy monkey 4,281 posts
trippy monkey
Agreed!
I have several Nimbus & I feel this 'away' feel isn't good. You feel as if you're listening to a bootleg.

Nick
Reply 0 0
panchamkauns 273 posts
panchamkauns
Nimbus were very proud of being able to record in a hall that naturally gave them this echo-chamber sound; it it not a studio manipulation. And they really liked it. Unfortunately, I and everyone I’ve played these recordings to don’t like it one bit.
We are 3
Reply 0 0
Jeff Whittier 125 posts
Jeff Whittier
Nimbus records it performances acoustically in an English country manor which has a room which they believe has beautiful acoustic properties. They spend a lot of time setting up the mics and produce their recordings with very little processing, almost none. All the reverb is natural, the product of the room itself. I'm fine with it.

In fact, I think the generation which seems object to the Nimbus appraoch is simply so used to over-processed commercial crap they have never heard acoustic music - the MP3 crowd. I think the Nimbus recordings are actually very pure ACOUSTIC music, recorded with great realism. Some of the studio performances listed above as "favorites" are actually very far from the true sound of the sitar. I remember hearing a story about some famous Indian sitar player freaking out at Sangati Center in SF when he found out there wouldn't be mics & a sound sytem. The idea that he had to play acoustically was maddening to him. Sitar itself is an instrument with low volume, and levels are generally manipulated for both concert and recording sound. Somewhere there's a description of the torturous process by which the great recording of Bismillah and Vilayat of Chaiti, Bhairavi, Gujari, was made. That could never have happened acoustically, as the levels for the two instruments are completely different. What I'm saying is, that people nowadays are used to sitar with a big boost, and that's now called "good sound" by people not interested in acoustic performance.

BTW, while I'm in the combative mood, I don't really care to rate sitar (or other) recordings much on their "sound." I'm much more interested in the music or performance itself. And since many of the greatest Indian or Pakistani musicians - like Bundu Khan or Panna Lal - were NEVER recorded well, the understanding of the heritage of ICM is skewed by what's available online. A lot of people today don't know anything about music that isn't available in MP3 for download. When I was learning ICM, we often listened to 8th generation cassette tapes of AIR radio broadcasts from the 1950's. And those were some of the best performances I've ever heard, like Gopal Misra's Todi.

I know, I'm a grouchy senior citizen. Other people are perfectly entitled to their own opinion of "best sounding."
Reply 0 0
rex 674 posts
rex
This is interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimbus_Records

They apparently use an "Ambisonic" recording system. Ambisonics is a type of surround-sound.

An Ambisonic decoder is required to experience such recordings in their truest, surround-sound, form. These have never been widely available, so Nimbus recordings are typically experienced as undecoded UHJ which is compatible with normal stereo reproduction. Some listeners find that this results in an over-reverberant sound, particularly on early recordings.

The emergence of home-theatre systems with increasing emphasis on surround playback offers opportunities for domestic listeners to experience at least some of Nimbus' many hundred Ambisonic recordings in their original condition. For example, the company has issued a series of "DVD Music" recordings in which the original 2-channel UHJ masters have been decoded to loudspeaker feeds and issued on conventional DVD-Audio/Video surround format discs. In addition, Nimbus recordings are now often recorded in Ambisonic B-Format which can be decoded directly to a multichannel surround format compatible with conventional multichannel discs such as DVD or DTS-CD.
Reply 0 0
rex 674 posts
rex
And here is someone from Nimbus talking about the recording process (http://members.cox.net/surround/uhjdisc/ambinimb.htm):

With a couple of exceptions, all of our recordings are UHJ encoded
Ambisonics. We have been using essentially the same recording technique
for almost thirty years now - a single microphone going to a home made
gain control box which outputs B-format. Until we started recording
digitally the direct output from the microphone was recorded onto 4
track analogue tape, usually 1/2" or 1". From when we switched to
digital, some time around 1980, we recorded the UHJ only. Now we are
starting to record B-format again.

We have used several different microphones over the years. We have used
a pair of Neumann SM69s, then a Neumann QM69 (limited edition quad
version of the SM69), then our own B-format mic. combining two Shoeps
figure-of-eights and a B&K omni, which we still use today.

Our recordings are made without any compression, limiting or
equalisation - the trick is to find the right musicians, the right hall
and the right place to put the microphone.
Reply 0 0
ragamala Senior Member 1,744 posts
ragamala
Jeff wrote:
In fact, I think the generation which seems object to the Nimbus appraoch is simply so used to over-processed commercial crap they have never heard acoustic music - the MP3 crowd.
Rex is perhaps too polite and is non-confrontational so I must say it -

The folks who have commented on the Nimbus sound are not spring chickens, I am not sure about Rex's age but his postings show a maturity which even without checking all his posts or our correspondence I think I can say he is not within your shotgun range.

As for Trippy and myself - we were asked a specific question and answered it honestly.

I have a stack of Nimbus CDs (which I bought!) and which I have thoroughly enjoyed, like Rex, over the years. I have thought them great recordings of performances and enjoyed them.

Asked a specific question about the sound, if I then zoom in on that I say now, I don't really think this is the best I would recommend to anyone else whose attention was focussed on that sound aspect from a modern point of view.

I have no disagreement with a whitebeard (oops sorry greybeard oops sorry admitted grouchy senior citizen) saying the performance, not the recording quality, is the thing (I would agree wholeheartedly).

As a sarangi enthusiast I go overboard for Bundu Khan, Gopal Mishra etc,,, for the playing... Ram Narayan too..

But don't bundle all all our comments into a package as though we are all folks who haven't spent a substantial part of our lifetime dedicated to listening to live ICM.
Reply 0 0
ChuckO 16 posts
ChuckO
Hello all,

My first post, as an completely uninformed newbie, and elated new owner of an absolutely beautiful Karasek "KSI Standard" (thanks, Tony!)..

I've a reasonably healthy collection of classical Indian CD's, including most anything by Nikhil Banerjee that I can find in up in Denver or order at Amazon, and I'm a fan of Shahid Pervez as well. Re: the recent thread, I have to agree that I'm not a huge fan of the Nimbus sound, on the Nimbus CD's I've purchased (and I'm not a spring chicken either... :^).

The subject of "Ear Candy", and the engineering thereof, for all types of music, is near and dear to me - back in the day, I collected half-speed mastered (vinyl) albums from Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs - so I wanted to second a recommendation from Kanti Dattani early on in this thread. I recently purchased "Talaash" by Purbayan Chatterjee(sitar) with Subhankar Banerjee(tabla) -Sense World Music 076. I ordered the CD after discovering his website where he indicated NB was his primary influence.. The CD is beautifully engineered; the playing, miking, and balance of sitar and tabla is just sonically gorgeous - to my ears anyhow, fwiw. Both Sitar and Tabla have a wonderful presence, truly "Ear Candy". I plan to purchase other recordings from this artist and this label, and wanted to share my experience.

I purchased this CD because he performs Raag Magunji on it, my favorite NB recording on Raga Records (which I listen to every AM with my coffee). If there are any other recommendations for well-engineered (and played, of course) Raag Malgunjis, I'd be grateful.

Thanks - I'm sure I'll be posting questions in the newbie thread...

-Chuck O.
Reply 0 0
Carter439 9 posts
Carter439
The best technically have to be the recent releases by a label called rhyme records. The Shahid Parvez, budhaditya mukherjee, Kushal Das, and Purbayan Chatterjee (although I dislike his playing, completley technical and bland to me) are recorded perfectly. Also a Shahid Parvez record called Tribute to my Father (with rags madhuvanti, jaijaivanti) is also great. The Ali Akbar Khan/NB album does have mixing problem although the sound is warm. Im listening to Raag Jhinjhoti by budhaditya mukherjee and his playing sound just like 70's VK. Whats with players today?
Reply 0 0
Reply