|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject:
Best way to mic piano for classical recording?
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro Date: 1999/03/23
I'm
trying to figure out the best way to make a good classical
recording
of a grand piano. The piano is a full size Steinway, and
the hall has
excellent acoustics (Olin Arts Center at Bates College).
I
can record to either DAT or ADAT. I have a Great River MP-2MH
preamp,
and I have an assortment of microphones, but I'm not sure
that I have
the best mics for this occasion. I'm also not sure how to
set up the
microphones.
I
have (2) neumann TLM 103's, a shure sm81, an an audio technica
AT4041.
I'm guessing that a pair of small diaphram mics might be
best, and I'm
considering getting a pair of neumann KM184's. But maybe
I need omnis,
or figure 8's or something.
Anyone
have advice on what mics would be good for this application,
and
what sort of mic placement I should use?
Thanks,
Jeff
Kew
jeffkew@home.com
Subject:
Re: Best way to mic piano for classical recording?
From:
GuySonic (guysonic@aol.com) Newsgroups:
rec.audio.pro Date:
1999/03/23
Recording the sound of a grand depends greatly
on capturing the ambient in a coherent manner that includes
the direct sound from the instrument with the ambient mix
or sound of the hall. Without including the ambient in a
natural coherent manner, the recording is going to sound
more like a tinted two-dimensional 'piano wallpaper' version
than the real thing.
Therefore,
use of an ambient stereo mic and method that records like
you hear sound will give consistent satisfactory results
suitable for speaker and headphones and sound that's 'virtual'
to the listener, identical to hearing that grand in that
hall at the mic position.
The
mic position is any place fairly close to the piano that
gives a good mix of piano + ambient. Too close will make
the piano far bigger than life (not a bad sound if working
in a poor sounding hall), while too distant will simply
sound like too much hall and not enough piano that sounds
a bit too distant; this is simple enough.
Just
listening 'with both ears' will give you what you want in
the recording using an HRTF baffled omni pair. No other
mic method works as easily or consistently to record what
you're hearing.
Baffled
omni (either Earthworks Matched Pair ..-30K or Sonic Studios
DSM-6S/EH with PA-10PFC powering) will record the full ambient
and natural sound of this instrument (and the ambient) and
provide 'as you hear it' mic placement not possible with
a 'finger in one ear' or stereo mic suggestions presented
so far.
Only
one HRTF baffle design exists that will do this job reliably.......
the LiteGUY (reviewed by Fletcher in this NG and in an upcoming
review in Pro Audio Review by Russ Long...... should print
in May or June) or the DSM-GUY. Both exclusive from Sonic
Studios until the 'others' catch up on understanding the
acoustics.
The
DSM mics are shown on my web site (WWW.SONICSTUDIOS.COM
) with reviews.
DSM
mic models are at: http://www.sonicstudios.com/dsm.htm
A
discussion of the why's of the baffled omni method is at:
http://www.sonicstudios.com/multitrk.htm
DSM
mic powering is discussed at: http://www.sonicstudios.com/pa_x.htm
DSM
recorded piano on page: http://www.sonicstudios.com/mp3.htm
Best
Regards in Sound & Music, Leonard Lombardo
Sonic Studios(tm) "Making Audio History With DSM(tm)
Microphones"
<<
Subject: Re: Best way to mic piano for classical recording?
From:
GuySonic (guysonic@aol.com)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro Date: 1999/03/24
From:
"Jean-Marie MATHIEU" <jm.mathieu@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 09:08:38 +0100
>Someone please elaborate on ORTF. Inquiring
minds want to know. Also,
>what is the baffle technique mentioned?
You
can find a description of this technique here :
http://www.josephson.com/tn5.html
>>
The HRTF Baffle method is discussed at: http://www.sonicstudios.com/multitrk.htm
The
LiteGUY model baffle is shown at: http://www.sonicstudios.com/liteguy.htm
HRTF
translates to 'Head Related Transfer Function' and is a
general term for the effect of the head with and without
the additional effects presented by the ears on the reception
of omni microphones placed (in some manner) in close proximity
to specific areas of a real persons head and/or ears. DSM
translates to Dimensional Stereo Microphones.
HRTF
is the modification of the normally flat and non-directional
reception characteristic of a single omni microphone or
multiples (two for stereo) of omni mics when placed near
a real person's head or acoustically correct (LiteGUY) baffle.
I know of some nearly successful attempts to provide this
complex transfer function in a digital processing solution
that have been attempted since DBX 'borrowed' a set of DSM
mics for evaluation in 1986 (they 'nearly' wore them out
in 3 months of continual laboratory use evaluating the HRTF
effect and created a company division to 'try' to develop
digital processes to recreate the HRTF effect in the electronic
domain; this division later became an entirely different
company whose efforts persisted after DBX closed operations).
For
practical use with HRTF baffles, the omni mics must be as
small as practical to avoid distortions associated with
the mic body size interference on the acoustic energy; mic
sizes of much less than 1/2" are best in terms of accuracy.
Extended ruler-flat frequency response from below 10 cycles
to beyond 25,000 is a decided advantage in an omni mic for
HRTF baffle use. The DSM mics are specialized for this with
many elecro/acoustical innovations not found in other very
small microphones.
A
BINAURAL microphone is a TYPE of HRTF baffled recording
method that always includes mics positioned in or in close
proximity of the 'ears'; like with Neumann, Aachen (heads),
and Senn. 2002 series mics. The DSM HRTF (patented) method
avoids the limitations presented by ear modification (like
that with Binaural) HRTF by careful mic positioning in an
adjacent area forward of the ears to the temple area of
the head or related area on a baffle like the LiteGUY.
HRTF
baffle recording has in more recent years been referred
to as a 'Psycho-acoustic' method of recording (perhaps thanks
to Ken Pohlman's writings) as it contains (by virtue of
the HRTF mic modification process)'psycho-acoustic cues'
that the ear-brain process recognizes as natural spatial
sound perception information. These natural 'cues' are contained
within psycho-acoustic or HRTF method type recordings like
those produced by the DSM mics when personally worn or mounted
on a baffle like the LiteGUY.
The
recordings made with the DSM HRTF (patented) method are
most consistent in providing 'as you heard it' recordings
on both speakers and phones.
This
of course makes setup far simpler because you can 'believe
BOTH your ears' (for the first time in mic methodology history)
to what the mic position sounds like to you regardless of
anything else; and is most likely to sound the same over
a variety of speaker systems to an even wider variety of
listeners.
Learning
to listen carefully with both ears is all you need to know
about using this method, but for those 'old timers', just
learning to listen at a mic position remains a true challenge
of 'no small dimensions'. Pun intended!
Best Regards in Sound & Music, Leonard Lombardo
Sonic Studios(tm) "Making Audio History With DSM(tm)
Microphones"
|
|
Subject:
Re: stereo bar for spaced omni recording?
Message 16 in thread Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Date: 1999/03/07
From:
Scott Dorsey (kludge@netcom.com)
In article <romain.920792965@kzsu> romain@kzsu.stanford.edu
writes:
>In an ideal world,
what would the good folk of r.a.p use to capture the bottom
octaves in proper balance with the other part of the spectrum?
>Wouldn't most directional microphones tend to roll
off the bass?
Most
directional microphones turn into omnis down there. If you
want to
build a cardioid mike with good low end, you need to use
a very tiny
diaphragm and then you start running into S/N issues.
Personally,
I use a pair of B&K 2615 measurement mikes, with the
4033
half-inch capsules. +/-3 dB points are at 2Hz and 35Hz.
I set them
up in a Jecklin disc configuration, which gives you good
front imaging
and still allows you to use omnis.
Gabe
used to use a slightly different baffled omni configuration,
the
Schoeps Sphere. In comparison, the tonality was very similar
although
it required different placement than the Jecklin disc.
A
friend of mine uses the Sennheiser MKH50 cardioids, but
then has a pair of MKH20 omnis as outriggers to adjust the
ambience. The Sennheiser RF cardioid mikes have pretty good
low end response as cardioids go. I don't like the imaging,
but he has the ability to adjust for the hall in post and
the label he works for really likes that.
None
of is stuff is particularly cheap, I am sad to say. Getting
the whole audible range is not a trivial matter.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Message
17 in thread Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro Date: 1999/03/07
Subject:
Re: stereo bar for spaced omni recording?
From: GuySonic (guysonic@aol.com)
In article <kludgeF88976.G3K@netcom.com>, kludge@netcom.com
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
>Subject:
Re: stereo bar for spaced omni recording?
>From: kludge@netcom.com (Scott Dorsey)
>Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 13:52:17 GMT
>
>In article <romain.920792965@kzsu> romain@kzsu.stanford.edu
writes:
>>In an ideal world, what would the good folk of
r.a.p use to capture the bottom octaves in proper balance
with the other part of the spectrum? Wouldn't most directional
microphones tend to roll off the bass?
>
>Most directional microphones turn into omnis down
there. If you want to build a cardioid mike with good
low end, you need to use a very tiny diaphragm and then
you start running into S/N issues.
>
>Personally, I use a pair of B&K 2615 measurement
mikes, with the 4033 half-inch capsules. +/-3 dB points
are at 2Hz and 35Hz. I set them up in a Jecklin disc configuration,
which gives you good front imaging and still allows you
to use omnis.
>
>Gabe used to use a slightly different baffled omni
configuration, the Schoeps Sphere. In comparison, the
tonality was very similar although it required different
placement than the Jecklin disc.
>
>A friend of mine uses the Sennheiser MKH50 cardioids,
but then has a pair of MKH20 omnis as outriggers to adjust
the ambience. The Sennheiser RF cardioid mikes have pretty
good low end response as cardioids go. I don't like the
imaging, but he has the ability to adjust for the hall
in post and the label he works for really likes that.
>
>None of is stuff is particularly cheap, I am sad to
say. Getting the whole audible range is not a trivial
matter.
>--scott
>--
>"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres
precis."
>
>
Hey
Scott! You forgot to mention Sonic Studios LiteGUY
with DSM microphones again! After Fletcher gave his personal
experience account and approval in a recent post, it should
be an option mentioned by now and is a fraction of the cost
of many alternatives mentioned with performance that's at
least equal to the best stereo microphones (regardless of
cost) in terms of seamless imaging and
frequency response.
Sound
Clips of all kinds of music instruments and ambient recordings
are available on my site listed below. Many magazine reviews
and recording tips are also available there.
The
DSM microphones are not nearly as critical of placement
as the Jecklin Disk or other stereo microphones because
of the natural mechanisms of sound reception that's being
used with the DSM microphone. Just listening to the mix
at the microphone postion is enough to get exactly that
sound without worry.
This
consistantly easy placement with Sonic Studios DSM mic is
not possible with any other type of stereo microphone as
they do not record sound like we tend to hear it. This is
why Scott mentions that placement varies with the type of
stereo mic used. Therefore, if the mic doesn't record sound
like you are hearing it (a known fact for the microphones
mentioned so far in this thread), proper placement is going
to be much more difficult as the recorded results will sound
vary different with every type of playback mode used (includes
speakers of all types and headphones of all types).
The
Jecklin Disk is a sort of baffle that has little to recommend
as it is NOT a true HRTF (Head Related Transfer Function)
design. Only two true HRTF baffles exist and both are available
from Sonic Studios. The Schoeps Sphere is way off the mark
in presenting a good baffle to spaced omni capsules and
remains a mystery to me why a company as good as this (excellent
mics for sure) created such an odd thing that only works
well on rare occasion. I would mention others that are at
least close to an accurate acoustical HRTF design, but no
others exist so far. Only Sonic Studios has designed an
accurate HRTF baffle and I can't tell you why I'm the only
one who has it as the design was not that difficult.
(Look
for an upcomming review from Russ Long in Pro Audio Review
on using the LiteGUY baffle with the DSM microphone in studio
sessions he recently has done; this will be on my site with
permission after it's published)
Frequency
response of the DSM microphones is ruler flat from 10 cycles
to above 22,000 with significant response out to beyond
30,000. You couldn't ask for a more affordable and quality
way to record ambient stereo sound. Large instruments like
piano, organ, drum kit, choral, and orchestral are prime
for using this type of microphone offered exclusively for
over 13 years by my company.
Best
Regards in Sound & Music Recording, Leonard Lombardo
Subject:
Re: stereo bar for spaced omni recording?
From:
Scott Dorsey (kludge@netcom.com)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro Date: 1999/03/07
Message 18 in thread
In
article <19990307153801.28255.00002247@ngol02.aol.com>
guysonic@aol.com (GuySonic) writes:
>
>The Jecklin Disk is a sort of baffle that has little
to recommend as it is NOT a true HRTF (Head Related Transfer
Function) design. Only two true HRTF baffles exist and
both are available from Sonic Studios. The Schoeps Sphere
is way off the mark in presenting a good baffle to spaced
omni capsules and remains a mystery to me why a company
as good as this (excellent mics for sure) created such
an odd thing that only works well on rare occasion. I
would mention others that are at least close to an accurate
acoustical HRTF design, but no others exist so far.
Neither
the Jecklin Disk nor the Schoeps sphere are _supposed_ to
model
the head in any way. That's not what they are for. They
are both methods of introducing some directionality into
a an omni microphone. In both cases, the output of the mike
more closely relates to something like an ORTF setup than
a headworn setup.
Ultimately,
what a conventional stereophony system is aiming for is
to recreate the wavefront in the studio. This is clearly
not possible, since you have a three-dimensional wave and
you can only reproduce it at two points. But you can get
surprisingly close.
You
could argue that since you're listening to the music with
ears that are attached to your head that it's already going
through a head-like transfer function once, and that you
wouldn't want to run it through twice unless for some reason
it's being bypassed in playback (like with headphones).
I won't get into the argument, because indeed the system
from Sonic Studios works pretty well. But it's an interesting
argument to follow and you can take it both ways pretty
well.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Subject:
Re: stereo bar for spaced omni recording?
From: GuySonic (guysonic@aol.com) Newsgroups:
rec.audio.pro Date: 1999/03/08
In
article <kludgeF88v9y.2rs@netcom.com>, kludge@netcom.com
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
>Subject:
Re: stereo bar for spaced omni recording?
>From: kludge@netcom.com (Scott Dorsey)
>Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 21:49:09 GMT
>
>Neither the Jecklin Disk nor the Schoeps sphere are
_supposed_ to model the head in any way. That's not what
they are for. They are both methods of introducing some
directionality into a an omni microphone. In both cases,
the output of the mike more closely relates to something
like an ORTF setup than a headworn setup.
>
>Ultimately, what a conventional stereophony system
is aiming for is to recreate the wavefront in the studio.
This is clearly not possible, since you have a three-dimensional
wave and you can only reproduce it at two points. But
you can get surprisingly close.
>
>You could argue that since you're listening to the
music with ears that are attached to your head that it's
already going through a head-like transfer function once,
and that you wouldn't want to run it through twice unless
for some reason it's being bypassed in playback (like
with headphones). I won't get into the argument, because
indeed the system from Sonic Studios works pretty well.
But it's an interesting argument to follow and you can
take it both ways pretty well.
>--scott
>--
>"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres
precis."
>
The
twice HRTF process argument is a very valid issue especially
with Binaural HRTF that uses the modification of the head_and_the_ears
to modify the microphone reception.
Using
the complexity of ear modification presents the problem
of twice HRTF processing speaker playback woes that are
well known. The DSM aproach is not so limited. I was granted
a methodology patent on the process employed with the DSM
HRTF method of using just the head_without_the_ears as the
sole modifier of the omni microphones because the results
are far more general purpose and very effective for ambient
stereo recordings that are reproducible from most any stereo
or surround speaker and all headphones, especially open
air types.
The
Binaural (in the ear) mic method is a very effective type
of HRTF recording, but only for headphones, especially closed
or 'in the ear' types where (as Scott mentioned) the twice
processed limitation is circumvented by eliminating the
head + ears for listening. Also, ears vary greatly with
people, so a general ear modifier doesn't work for everyone.
NOTE: Many commercially available Binaural microphones systems
like the Neumann or Aachen Head use special filters to change
the mic signal from true binaural to something else that
works a bit better with the general population of headphone
listeners with varied ear shapes.
However,
head only HRTF modifiers (like the LiteGUY) are more effective
as head size doesn't vary very much over the entire human
population making this mic method consistent. Virtually
everyone who hears the recording can relate naturally to
the 3-D ambient sound cues without mental 'reconfiguration'
of the sound reception cues.
Having
the HRTF processing of just the head modifier (sans ears)
seems not to be a problem (thankfully) as this sound is
prime for listener's perceptions with using their own head
+ ears with virtually no confusion with the head-only HRTF
double processing that does take place with speaker playback
listening.
The
ears do so much acoustic processing on their own, that the
pre-HRTF processed recording just sounds like a live recording
with coherent 3-D ambient sounds that give the recording
depth. The feeling of depth is something that is largely
missing from the other stereo microphone methods discussed
and is one the main advantages that the DSM approach has
over just 2-D stereo imaging that cannot capture the 'sound
cues' like we need to hear them. Only by using a baffle
like the LiteGUY can those 3-D wavefronts, that Scott previously
mentioned, be recorded so that we can later hear them and
re-associate them (a psycho-acoustical brain process) like
we do when listening to the live sound at the chosen mic
position. The depth is part of the surrounding space and
needs be recorded with natural coherent mic methodology
like the DSM. Using disks or spheres or whatever else you
want that falls short of the true HRTF will not consistently
allow making a coherent ambient 3-D surround sound recording.
Studio
recording methods (as often discussed in this group) have
mostly gotten along very well, although other times not
so well (like with piano), without dealing with the real
issues of ambient sound by using close mic, not-natural
stereo mic, and multitrack methods with/without post-EFX
processing. However, recording LARGE instruments that are
the ENTIRE BUILDING, like an acoustic organ, really raise
the question on how to record the sounds of an instrument
that involves (or should involve) the entire 360-degree
acoustic ambient.
This
can only be done successfully, in my knowledge, by recording
all the sound in a 3-D 'coherent' surround-sound manner.
While there are many approaches to doing this, only one
mic method (DSM...HRTF) really delivers consistent performance
regardless of working ambient (stage width, distance, ambient
reflections, and so on) by recording in a very natural (coherent)
manner that replicates own natural stereo reception mechanisms
and consistently fulfills the need of the listener (our
'end customer') to effortlessly re-live the acoustic experience
from the resulting recording.
It's
not really that high tech, just very 'high natural'. And
until I get greedy (or perhaps just more realistic) on my
pricing, the DSM system is a bargain you can't refuse to
take me up on if you want to bring that sound back fully
alive virtually (pun intended) every time.
Best Regards in Sound & Music, Leonard Lombardo
|
|
Subject:
Re: Hail Curtis...was:Mic positioning for choir (+Fletcher's
HRTF session comments)
From: GuySonic (guysonic@aol.com)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro Date: 1999/02/06
In article <36B8F703.7748@mercenary.com>,
Fletcher <Fletcher@mercenary.com>
writes:
>Subject:
Hail Curtis...was:Mic positioning for choir (+Fletcher's
HRTF
>session comments)
>From: Fletcher <Fletcher@mercenary.com>
>Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 21:25:24 -0400
>
>>
>> In article <36b4ea6f.0@newsread3.dircon.co.uk>,
"Frank Wood"
>> <woodf-l@dircon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> >Subject: Re: Mic positioning for choir (+Fletcher's
HRTF session comments)
>> >From: "Frank Wood" <woodf-l@dircon.co.uk>
>> >Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 23:41:10 -0000
>> >Spaced pairs can give you an awful hole
in the middle. The classic way is a coincident pair
of anything from straight cardioids to figure-of-eights,
according to how much ambient (i.e. reflected) sound
you want. Hypercardioids, even.
>> >
>> >I missed Fletcher's HRTF post, but as far
as I can tell, this sounds like a way to add a directional
character to omnis.
>
>I missed it too...Like
I think I forgot to do it...so let me try and make amens.
Leonard was kind enough to send me a dummy head with a
couple of the mics that clip on where the ears would go
on a human. We named the brother "Curtis".
>
>After properly dressing Curtis (do-rag, shades, mouth
complete with cigarette-unlit), Curtis was led around
the "Mainstage" recording space.
>This
was setup number 2 of three, it was on the 100'x40' rehearsal
stage at Longview Farm. Along with a rather excellent
sounding set of Ludwig drums were 2-SVT's, 2 of my custom
Aerosmith (started as HD-130's and got louder from there)
amps...and a fairly decent EAW FOH system so you could
hear the drums over all that racket. Average SPL for the
stage >was about 122db.
>
>The SR sytem also had the loops (on the songs they
were used...not all of 'um) coming out of it, as well
as a reference vocal. The kit was mic'd with a Neumann
M-147 about 4'(ish) in front of the kit, and a Neumann
KM-54 over the drummers right shoulder.
>
>The PA was fed by a Shure 57 for the snare, a Shure
57 for the kick, a 421 for the rack tom, and a 421 for
the floor tom. It took about a day to get the drums sounding
really good out of the PA (yeah, 57's...what of it?),
but when we got it sounding good...Curtis put you in the
environment that was that stage, sans the pain of being
up there for an extended period of time (my tinnitus was
ringing nearly as loud as the damn stage by the end of
2 weeks).
>
>Last weekend past was the start of vocal and percussion
overdubs, I was amazed at the feeling of space Curtis
was able to capture. Curtis was even better after some
rest (which is not always the case in my past experience).
It quite captured the feeling of being there, added a
thickness and dimension to the recording that I'm not
too sure could have been captured by another method...it
was more than just a clarity, it really gave me a sense
of being there.
>
>Whatever the thing is called...Mr. LiteGuy, HRTF,
DSM, Curtis...he rules. I think one of the things that
amazed me most was that when I first put Curtis up, I
did it "intellectually"...I thought about where
I thought was going to sound best for Curtis...after two
days of fucking with the sound and balance of the band
on the stage, I noticed myself gravitating to one spot
on the stage, and listening from there. I got a really
good balance of drums, guitar and bass at this one spot...so
when Curtis went to that spot, I got the same sound in
the control room. The "intellectual" spot wasn't
bad...but the balance was a bit off...more like "drum
ambience" mics, which wasn't my intended purpose.
The intention being to get a balance of the whole band
playing...which I got, but I got a bit more.
>I've
lightly messed with it a little bit, nothing major, but
tried a little compression for the after session ruff
mixes...they needed a little lower mids pulled after adding
a bit of compression, but that has more to do with the
environment than Curtis. The rear KM-54 required a similar
pull on some low mids as well. The M-147 just sat there
like the cardioid lumox it is and did an excellent impression
of a 47fet with too much output...in other words, it sounded
really good (he said breaking an arm patting himself on
the back...OK it sounded like I wanted it to sound...no,
this will never get a Grammy nomination...but I think
it sounded right for the band...enough).
>
>I don't know what Curtis sells for...but I do believe
he's on the wish list for the future. I don't really think
I want to cut more basics without him...he's become a
real pal!!
>
>Sorry this took so long to post, but I think only
Leonard was waiting for it, and frankly, I'm really glad
to have had the opportunity to review the tracks again
before posting this.
>--
>Fletcher
>Mercenary Audio
>TEL: 508-543-0069
>FAX: 508-543-9670
>http://www.mercenary.com
Well, you're right (as usual), it seems like
I may be the only one waiting or cared for hearing about
how an (HRTF) LiteGUY baffle with DSM mic actually worked
within a real recording session.
I
for one appreciate your kind effort and care in writing
a report that also provided much insight to session and
post session work in general that should've been of interest
to others (besides you, me, and a maybe few 'silent' others)
within this NG who have interest to learn about acoustically
mic'd ambient stereo recording methods like using "Curtis"
and spot mics for bringing a session within acceptable focus.
Of
main importance is your being able to hear a good ambient
mix at some postion and then get that exact same sound recorded
using LiteGUY 'Curtis' in the same postion. The LiteGUY
baffled spaced omni mic feature of being able to just listen
normally (not having to plug one ear and then second guess
or trial and error reposition the mic as Scott often suggests)
for a good mic placement position should be of great value
for recordings that need be quickly setup and allow little
time for trial and error refinements. No other stereo mic
method (other than a LiteGUY type mic) will 'always' and
reliably give that "what you hear is what you actually
get recorded" ability.
Fletcher,
thank you for the informative post and for having the courage
to try something new.
Best
Regards in Sound & Music, Leonard Lombardo
Sonic Studios(tm) "Making Audio History With DSM(tm)
Microphones"
Subject:
Re: Hail Curtis...was:Mic positioning for choir (+Fletcher's
HRTF session com...
From: hank alrich (walkinay@thegrid.net) Message
2 in thread Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro Date: 1999/02/06
GuySonic
<guysonic@aol.com> wrote:
>
Well, you're right (as usual), it seems like I may be the
only one waiting or cared for hearing about how an (HRTF)
LiteGUY baffle with DSM mic actually worked within a real
recording session.
Wrong!
<g> I was looking forward to Fletcher's reaction to
your setup, and now it's archived.
Damn, so many mics; so little money!
--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
|
|
Subject:
Re: Another $400 mike question
(Pipe Organ Recording)
From: GuySonic (guysonic@aol.com)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro Date: 1999/11/07
In
article <19991105193922.27390.00001179@ng-fb1.aol.com>,
nhsns@aol.com
(Nhsns) writes:
>Subject:
Another $400 mike question
>From: nhsns@aol.com (Nhsns)
>Date: 06 Nov 1999 00:39:22 GMT
>
>What is the best single-point stereo
microphone less than $400. It must NOT require phantom power--or
any strange, difficult to obtain battery.
>
>The best recommendation I've received so far is the
Sony ECM-999. If you have an alternate choice, please let
me know.
>
>Good bass performance is mandatory. This mike will be
used for pipe organ recording.
>
>Thanks a bunch,
>
>Norm Strong (nhsns@aol.com) or (norm@scn.org)
>2528 31st South, Seattle WA 98l44
>
Your
post for a reasonable way to record the full bandwidth of
a pipe organ in stereo is best done with two full pressure
type omni microphones.
None
of the single point microphones, ribbon microphones, or
any of the other types posted as suggestions will work out
for at least lack of pressure type bass response regardless
of what the posts claim and for other just as important
stereo imaging requirements.
However,
using these two (pressure type) omni microphones spaced
out in some manner is not enough for recording the spatial
ambient sound in stereo that's also very important for making
a satisfying large size acoustic instrument recording.
A
baffle needs be used placed between the two mics for the
ambient stereo aspect to also be recorded faithfully.
Jecklin
Disk type baffles are OK and far better than NO Baffling,
but lack some important (HRTF) features for consistent results.
My
site listed below has tips, reviews, mics, baffles, and
sample sounds of pipe organ recorded with Sonic Studios
(my own company) DSM designed mic systems.
Suggested
mic model: DSM-6/H (headworn or using the LiteGUY HRTF Baffle)
Some URL's to view:
http://www.sonicstudios.com/mp3.htm (see St. James Cathedral,
Seattle recording)
http://www.sonicstudios.com/liteguy.htm
http://www.sonicstudios.com/reviews.htm
Mic
models suited to your music or sound recording tastes are
listed at:http://www.sonicstudios.com/dsm.htm
Powering
& bass filter considerations are discussed at: http://www.sonicstudios.com/pa_x.htm
E-mail
me with questions and about your current recording deck/preamplifier
equipment for best system fit suggestions.
Best Regards in Sound & Music,
Leonard Lombardo
Sonic Studios(tm) "Making Audio History With DSM(tm)
Microphones"
Ph.541-459-8839 USA Free:1-888-875-4976 WEB: www.sonicstudios.com
|
|
Subject:
Portable Audio....
From: Jaspenn (jaspenn@aol.com)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro Date: 1999/09/19
Please
excuse me if this is not the proper NG, but I'm looking
for suggestions and information on portable audio recording
hardware and software. I will be recording audio (non-musical)
in various places and will want to post edited versions
to a web site on a routine, daily basis. I will need to
record as much as 2 or 3 hours at a time (on tape?) and
then send excerpts to a web site. Can this be done on
a lap top? Or will a seperate recorder be more likely?
Any advice and recommendations will be appreciated, especially
by email. Thank you.
From: GuySonic (guysonic@aol.com)Subject: Re: Portable Audio....
I know that at least some would say this is the right
place to post this subject.
Your
desire for recording (stereo ambient sounds?) might be
well served by
using a portable MD like Sharp's MD-MS722 or (better for
long duration &
highest quality) Sony PCM-M1 DAT deck.
(PRODUCT
PITCH) Many who are doing similar live field recordings
are finding
Sonic Studios (my own company & product) HRTF baffled
or headworn DSM stereo
mics a perfect fit
Sonic
Studios' Site content is extensive and dedicated to this
type of
recording with reviews, recording tips, recommended hardware,
and .MP3
sounds/Music done by others and myself (with taking my
own advice on recording
methods/mics/decks). Take a look there for some examples
and good ideas.
See:
http://www.sonicstudios.com/mp3.htm
http://www.sonicstudios.com/reviews.htm
Recording directly to a Laptop is feasible (maybe
consider using an Opcode
DATport or currently available
www.M-Audio.com
external USB soundcard device or similar on a laptop),
but I'd strongly suggest recording to DAT tape while digitally
outputting USB ported audio as described at: (http://www.sonicstudios.com/datport.htm).
Laptop live audio recording seems to be not nearly reliable
enough and too power hungry for casual portable use.
The
affordable and practical Sony PCM-M1
DAT deck is ideal for making reliable
very high quality 2-track 2-3 hour length recordings
with or without the laptop in the loop.
As
a side note along with this topic, I did a recent on
location (Jazz piano, drum, bass trio) session work
using HRTF LiteGUY baffled DSM-6S/H mic on a boom, custom
DC servo preamplifier, and a full size Sony R-500 DAT
deck running tape but with digital output to a (all UPS
powered!) Laptop DAW+CD-R system with a DATport digital
I/O.
What
I really liked about having the session (successfully!)
already on a DAW Hard Drive was the ability to hand the
client not one, but two 50+ minute length CD-Rs of the
most promising takes within 45 minutes of the session's
end! The customer (who was very time-limited as to get
to his evening performance) took home the 2 CD-Rs (25
total tracks) for later careful listening and this allowed
the next day "backup" sessions to be deemed
unnecessary.
The
quickly done rough-track CD-R allowed good customer assessment
of usefulness of the session's recorded tracks and completion
of the all goals in that first day. It took only about
4 more hours to edit/master a proper 60+ minute worth
of CD-R tracks suitable for assembly and duplication without
once
needing to transfer anything from the DAT "backup"
tapes.
This
is all very good when the Laptop recording system works,
but just one little problem during the session with the
Laptop, its software, or interface would likely have made
this a two day session (like NO customer take-home CD-R
& QA) with double or triple the time required to transfer
material from the DAT "real-time" tape to the
DAW edit/mastering process.
While
some of you may have debugged and now use a reliable "fixed_in_place"
studio system with this direct to hard drive edit advantage,
mine was a on-location quick setup job that just happened
to have everything work like it did at "rehearsal"
back at the ranch. I just wouldn't bet everything on a
laptop system working flawlessly every time; better to
have a DAT tape copy also running just in case.
Best
Regards in Sound & Music, Leonard Lombardo
Sonic Studios(tm) "Making Audio History With DSM(tm)
Microphones"
Ph.541-459-8839 USA Free:1-888-875-4976 WEB: www.sonicstudios.com
|
|
Subject:
tuning near-fields
From:
Christian Esteves (esteves32@worldnet.att.net) Newsgroups:
rec.audio.pro Date: 1999/09/15
>newbie...can
anyone inform me how to correctly tune near field monitors....(a
brief explanation much appreciated)
This generally is not done.
Close
monitors are left natural, as it is assumed that they will
not be running so loudly that faults in the acoustics of
the room will be overly abundant. (Though this is not always
the case).
'Tuning',
applies to the acoustic environment in which you have placed
a speaker. That tuning is preferably done by modifying the
physical shape of the room and it's reflectivity. IOW, you
are tuning the room by making physical changes, not tuning
the speaker itself.
Inserting
an EQ in the path of the control room playback in order
to make the final, minute adjustments when using mid field
or distant (large) monitors, may be what you are referring
to. It's the 'fine-tuning' that might still need to come
after the physical (structural) changes and surface treatments
are made. It's not recommended and should be considered
last, after other methods of taming the room are exhausted.
After
sentence one, that's about as brief as it gets.
David
Morgan (MAMS)
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, TX (972) 622-1972
___________________________________________
Message 3 in thread
From: Bill Roberts (wroberts@grove.ufl.edu)
Subject: Re: tuning near-fields Newsgroups:
rec.audio.pro Date: 1999/09/15
Christian
Esteves wrote:
>
> newbie...can anyone inform me how to correctly tune
near field monitors....(a brief explanation much appreciated)
I
assume you mean you have monitors that have switches offering
options of increased highs, etc.
With
regard to bass, this is selected according to whether
you are placing them in a corner (you need the most bass
cut to compensate for this), against a wall (some bass
cut), or in free air.
With
regard to treble, I would leave it flat and then see how
the reproduced sound (from a recording that is very natural
sounding, perhaps one you made yourself using a very neutral
mic, or a CD) compares to natural. If the sound from the
speakers has more or less treble or bass than the original
sound then change the settings.
Also
see how mixes seem to translate when you play them in
cars, home stereos, etc. If mixes played outside
the studio don't have enough highs, for example, though
they sounded right in the studio, then the monitors are
adding highs you don't want and you should change the
setting.
Problem
is if you are not experienced with how things "should"
sound then you really cannot do this. If you make the
studio monitors sound like a home stereo that has the
graphic EQ set in a smiley face (boosted top and bottom
and scooped in the middle) and with the loudness button
on, you will be screwed. And if that is your idea of how
things should sound, you will be screwed until you learn
otherwise.
--
Bill
Message 4 in thread
From: Randy (rkirk@rocketmail.com )
Subject: Re: tuning near-fields Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Date: 1999/09/16
Bill Roberts <wroberts@grove.ufl.edu>
wrote in message
news:37E050A6.C2261ADC@grove.ufl.edu...
If
you make the studio monitors sound like a home stereo
that has the graphic EQ
> set in a smiley face (boosted top and bottom and
scooped in the middle) and with the loudness
> button on, you will be screwed. And if that is
your idea of how things should sound, you will
> be screwed until you learn otherwise.
hmmm.
I'm never been a full-time engineer, but I've recorded
and mixed a lot of demos over the years and I don't quite
agree. While I do mix with my near field moniters and
amp EQ'd flat, at times I have difficulty getting the
right bass level that sounds great on other stereos. With
small moniters, the bass response (obviously) isn't there.
So..
(purists please disregard) in addition to monitering flat,
I also moniter with the loudness switch ON (at lower volumes),
if for no other reason to provide a different POINT OF
REFERENCE, not unlike playing the mix on a different system.
Since many people (myself included) tend to boost bass
when listening for pleasure (especially electronic music),
why not also moniter with same settings as you'd normally
listen to, and are most accustomed to? My point here is
that boosted bass has become it's own reference standard
for the general public, so why not use it as a tool?
I've
found that the easiest way to determine whether or not
I've got too many lows in the mix is to moniter with the
loudness switch ON. If I've mixed the bass too loud while
monitering flat, the loudness button blows it WAY out
of proportion -- an obvious sign that I should ease back
on the lows. The bottom line is to have points of reference
that you can work with.
By
the way, I probably wouldn't do this if I mixed with a
subwoofer and/or larger moniters.
OK
bring on the flames, tinnitus-heads. ; )
Message 5 in thread
From: GuySonic (guysonic@aol.com)
Subject: Re: tuning near-fields Newsgroups:
rec.audio.pro Date: 1999/09/16
Applying
a MONO FM interstation sound (or pink noise) to each speaker
after placement is fairly certain will help setup the
stereo imaging aspect.
My
technique is to then listen 'dead-center' at the listening
position for how this mono signal images. I find it more
ideal when the noise appears to come from the exact center
and seems about 1/4 to 1/2 the speaker spacing width at
the optimum listening position.
The
monitors are angle adjusted (towed inward) to make the
mono "pink noise" sound as narrow or as wide
as you desire and this angle will vary with the speaker
and the frequency; pink noise has virtually all frequencies
and serves to test the full range frequency imaging aspect
of any speaker and the speaker position.
I
personally like fairly wide space speakers that're usually
at least as wide spaced as distant from my listening position
and angled to focus 'just in front' of my head.
Usually,
the closer you're positioned to the monitors, the more
critical the speaker/listening positioning for accurate
imaging. The larger the monitor speaker, the more distance
is required to widen the usable listening position. Getting
at least a full 12 inches of critical listener position
side-to-side width might be considered quite adequate
for nearfield monitor setups. (also
see surround speaker positioning suggestions on the tips
page)
Best
Regards in Sound & Music, Leonard Lombardo
Sonic Studios(tm) "Making Audio History With DSM(tm)
Microphones"
Ph.541-459-8839 USA Free:1-888-875-4976 WEB: www.sonicstudios.com
|
|
Subject:
Re: Question from a new poster Message
9 in thread
From: GuySonic (guysonic@aol.com)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro Date: 1999/09/10
In
article <19990909193310.25386.00006342@ng-fz1.aol.com>,
hatnyc62@aol.com (Hat NYC 62) writes:
>Subject:
Question from a new poster
>From: hatnyc62@aol.com (Hat NYC 62)
>Date: 09 Sep 1999 23:33:10 GMT
>
>Do you know what the big labels like
Sony are doing when they record clarinet with piano or
with orchestra to 'sweeten' the sound of the performer.
I am mostly speaking in terms of microphone placement.
If you have heard some of the better known performers
live and on records, you can hear that the engineers have
found a flattering way to record some of the clarinetists
today.
>
>I am asking because a friend of mine and I have been
doing some experimental recordings with some excellent
equipment (neumann u89, millenia media pre, apogee 24
bit converter). The sound we get is mostly accurate, but
rather clinical, definitely not 'flattering' to the clarinet
sound. I was wondering if there was something we hadn't
thought of.
>
>Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
>
>
You
might consider a completely different microphone method
that records an ambient stereo more nearly to how you
hear the sound at the recording position.
This
type of recording (download some of the .mp3
music samples on my site) consistently provide a very
complimentary sound of all acoustic instruments at fairly
close to further out distances.
Distance
or mic position is a variable that is best determined
by actually normally listening for the better mic positions.
The mics and methods so far discussed will not allow you
this convenience as they do not record like or what you're
hearing.
A
mix of direct instrument to acceptable ambient sounds
will be different for each room, instrument, and desired
effects appropriate for the composition. Listen for what's
acceptable, then record it at this chosen position with
this stereo microphone.
DSM-6S/EH
or /H models are suggested either headworn or with the
HRTF GUY or LiteGUY
mounting baffle.
Best
Regards in Sound & Music, Leonard Lombardo
Sonic Studios(tm) "Making Audio History With DSM(tm)
Microphones"
Ph.541-459-8839 USA Free:1-888-875-4976 WEB: www.sonicstudios.com
|
|
Message
3 in thread
Subject: Re: Recording a
small choir & instruments
From: Scott Dorsey (kludge@netcom.com)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.proDate: 1999/04/11
In
article <1dq3sll.4gqbfh13pd0k2N@ppp00664.01019freenet.de>
saetc@gmx.de (Hannes) writes:
>
>I am a student in audio technology in Germany. Please
excuse my simple English, my last lesson took place
really long ago.
My
German is far worse. You are doing much better than
I would be able to do in German.
>I
am going to do a recording in a church. There will be:
- a choir, consisting of 5 girls - two instruments:
an acoustic guitar and a small drum, both played by
members of the choir.
>
>The problem is that the girls are not used in working
with headphones. I fear that they will not be able to
perform properly when I first record the instruments
and then record the choir hearing the instruments and
themselves on the headphones.
Why
do you want to do this in multiple takes with overdubs?
Why do you
want to use headphones anyway?
This
seems like a very appropriate use for a single microphone
pair, just
recording the whole ensemble as one. You have musicians
who are used to
playing with one another and who naturally balance themselves,
so don't
wreck up the balances. Just set up an ORTF pair and position
it until you
get a good mix.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Message
4 in thread
Subject: Re: Recording
a small choir & instruments
From: Lars Kr. Tofastrud (romakust@online.no)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro Date: 1999/04/11
Mr
Dorsey is absolutely right!
No
reason at all to use headphones and stuff
Use
a pair of Earthworks QTC1 and a good mic pre-amp and a
nice recorder. (Tascam 24bit DAT or some PC based stuff
with at least 20 bit resolution)
you
should get a natural and correct balance if they are capable
of playing/singing together (I suppose they do)
Stereo
will probably blow you away! Listen to your recording
in a nice mastering quality hi-fi room and you will be
thrilled!
Best
regards
Lars Tofastrud
Message 5 in thread
Subject: Re: Recording
a small choir & instruments
From: GuySonic (guysonic@aol.com)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro Date: 1999/04/11
While
I agree with Scott and Lars on the stereo pair approach
as best, the ORTF pair is directional and excludes side/rear
ambiance with also inducing undesirable and quite audible
phase distortions. Setup is a bitch as you never really
know what you're going to get and it sounds different
with each playback system. Trusting what you hear during
setup is not going to provide much security with this
microphone method.
Just
spacing a single pair matched omni removes the phase
distortions problem nicely, but this mic method presents
frequency dependent phase cancellations (due to the
spacing) that are audible to very audible with great
difficulty or impossible to remove after the fact with
any satisfaction.
Setup
is a bit easier with spaced omni method as the flanging
is more consistently audible allowing the adjustments
to be made with much necessary rehearsal as the sound
stage+ambient is active in producing an acceptable distance
from the stage and spacing of the mic array. But, setup
is still a bitch as you can still never be completely
sure of he final product even with much setup time.
Trusting what you hear is not part of this method of
mic technique.
With
both these previous discussed methods, much luck and
experience is needed to get OK results.
An
advanced method of mic technique again uses two matched
omni, but with a HRTF baffle between; and NO, this is
not a disk or sphere baffle. This HRTF baffle eliminates
audible flanging common with spaced omni and makes setup
a snap as just listening with both ears in a normal
"surround-sound" mode to what the sound is
like at any chosen mic position will reflect exactly
the recorded sound as reproduced by a wide variety of
speakers and headphones. Setup is most easy and reliable
because the mics record in a manner that replicates
how sound is heard, but is not a binaural method with
binaural limitations of playback. DSM recorded Sound
is naturally Pro Logic encoded for playback with full
360 degree ambience available.
While
my company provides both mics and HRTF baffle hardware
specialized for this purpose. Your choice of paired
omni mic is your own, but HRTF baffles of proper design
are only available from Sonic Studios or use your own
head to baffle the similar mics.
A
discussion of the HRTF recording method is found at:
http://www.sonicstudios.com/multitrk.htm
Best
Regards in Sound & Music, Leonard Lombardo
Sonic Studios(tm) "Making Audio History With
DSM(tm) Microphones"
Ph.541-459-8839 USA Free:1-888-875-4976 WEB: www.sonicstudios.com
|
|
Subject:
Re: Recreating Spatiality in Mix View
From:
GuySonic (guysonic@aol.com)Newsgroups:
rec.audio.proDate: 1999/04/11
In
article <cclee-1004992302470001@a27-44.itis.com>,
cclee@itis.com (Chia Chin
Lee) writes:
>Subject:
Recreating Spatiality in Mix
>From: cclee@itis.com (Chia Chin Lee)
>Date: 11 Apr 1999 04:03:40 GMT
>
>I'm experimenting with ways to achieve better spatiality
in my mixes, and I thought I'd turn to you guys for some
thoughts and advice.
>
>First, some background concerning what I'm aiming
for. I'm working with electronically-realized orchestral
music. After a/b-ing my music with what I consider to
be good mixes, I have found one *major* difference.
>Although my mixes have good balance in terms of Left-Right
relationships, the mix is severely lacking in a sense
of Front and Back.
>
>Granted, most of the music I'm comparing against are
performed live, in a real acoustical space, so I'm not
really being fair. What I'm aiming to do is to simply
give my sample-based music a better sense of spatial depth
>through panning and reverb.
>
>Here's what I'm doing right now:
>I've attempted to create a sense of space by submixing
5 sections (Front, Near Front, Middle, Near Back, Back)
of the orchestra. All the individual instruments are panned
according to where they sit in the orchestra, and >placed
in each section of the submix. I am mixing the Front section
(First Violin, Cello, Bass) with the least reverb, with
each submix increasing in reverb, until the Back (mostly
Percussions) which receives the most reverb treatment.
>
>As I said, I am quite happy with the Left-Right result
of the mix (panning is easy... :), but the Front-Back
is sounding less distinct than I'd like. Ideally, I'd
like to be able to close my eyes and have a mental image
of the placement of the source of the sound.
>
>
>If you have any ideas on how to recreate better spatiality
in a mix, I'd appreciate it.
>
>Thank you!
>
While
full Dolby 5.1 processor encoding remains an option
for doing something like this, my site has an article
on how to do this in a reasonably good sounding ambient
by staging playback speakers of the tracks you want
to
localize in real dimensional space. This method is prime
for taking electronically synth sounds with no dimensional
acoustics and adding the 3rd dimension via re-recording
with a 3-D stereo microphone method that then provides
the final mix with all the needed realism of hearing
this as an acoustic event at the 3-D stereo mic position.
The
psycho-acoustical cues of dimensional hearing (like
what we use to localize sounds in real acoustic space)
is what the DSM microphone records using a specialized
(patented) Head Related Transfer Function (HRTF) baffling
of miniature spaced omni (the DSM mics).
URL
for this article is: http://www.sonicstudios.com/multitrk.htm
The
hardware to do this type of recording is also featured
on the site listed
below.
Best
Regards in Sound & Music, Leonard Lombardo
Sonic Studios(tm) "Making Audio History With
DSM(tm) Microphones"
Ph.541-459-8839 USA Free:1-888-875-4976 WEB: www.sonicstudios.com
|
|
Subject:
Re: Recording a Piano/Vocal Combo
From:
GuySonic (guysonic@aol.com) Newsgroups:
rec.audio.pro Date: 1999/03/31
In
article <3700EB3F.E998F9A@millerthomson.ca>, Jordan
Slator <jazz@v-wave.com writes:
>Subject:
Recording a Piano/Vocal Combo
>From: Jordan Slator <jazz@v-wave.com>
>Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 08:18:23 -0700
>
>I've been asked to record a few songs by a friend's
piano/vocal duo,
>and I need some advice on both equipment and technique.
My own
>equipment (Makie, SM57s, etc.) is basically geared for
budget
>basement-rock demo type stuff, but I want something
better quality for
>this recording. They want to press a few CD's and use
them for
>demo/portfolio purposes.
>
I'd
approach this in an easy and natural way using one or
both the following suggestions.
Have
the vocalist wear a DSM HRTF stereo microphone and stand
at a position
where the piano (facing the open side) is considered a
good mix with the vocal
(listen on phones to the stereo to determine this position).
This method is
beneficial with vocalists of all kinds of ability and
you'll just need to
listen to the ambient piano mix with the vocal to determine
where the vocalist
is heard at a good level the piano; consider this THE
MIX (all acoustic here)
with hearing a good balance of the two. Very simple and
fairly foolproof.
Second
method is to place the vocalist in front of the open side
of the piano
facing away towards the DSM headworn by you, an assistant,
or baffle worn on
the LiteGUY HRTF baffle. Wearing this stereo mic yourself
will instantly give you the
'as-you-heard-it' recorded mix (no headphone monitoring
necessary, but using
sealed earbuds is a possibility for the insecure when
self wearing this mic).
Spacing the vocalist's distance from the piano adjusts
the vocal to piano mix,
and spacing the DSM microphone from the vocalist will
give the appropriate
vocal+piano to ambient mix for an excellent and natural
acoustic stereo
recording that will hold up consistently as a good sound
under many different
playback conditions. A vocalist with good projection and
who knows how to use
the room ambient is a plus with this second method
Details
about the DSM microphone and HRTF stereo recording method
are available
on my site or questions answered directly by phone or
E-mail.
There
are plenty of ways to record the sounds of piano and vocal,
but you'll
need plenty of setup time, rehearsal time, more equipment,
and a generous
amount of luck to succeed as well with other approaches
that don't record in a
natural as-you-hear-sound manner.
It's
always your choice (or should be if acting professional
about this), but
being open to suggestions is the first step in knowing
your options and
learning about a very rewarding, but often way too (unnecessarily
so)
convoluted technical subject.
The
ability to recognize and know the best solutions in this
field of interest
will make achieving recording satisfaction far easier
and more consistent;
allowing you to succeed under a very wide range of situations.
The ability to
hear just what a recording method is doing with just your
normal hearing (no
double thinking or impairing of the hearing to replicate
some odd mic response
or pattern, or needing special monitoring systems, or
having to muffle an
acoustic instrument), the more quickly satisfied you'll
be with recording
acoustic sounds.
Now
for all the alternatives to consider........ Now gentleman,
start (or
continue) your replies....
Regards
in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo
----------------------------------------
Sonic Studios(tm)..."Making Audio History With
DSM(tm) Microphones"
TEL: 541-459-8839 /\ FAX: 541-459-8842 /\ USA Free:
1-888-875-4976
|
|
Subject:
Re: Help Recording Vocals w/Reverb
From:
GuySonic (guysonic@aol.com) Newsgroups:
rec.audio.pro Date: 1999/03/15
In
article <kludgeF8M7H5.GIJ@netcom.com>, kludge@netcom.com
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
>Subject:
Re: Help Recording Vocals w/Reverb
>From: kludge@netcom.com (Scott Dorsey)
>Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 02:41:29 GMT
>
>In article <36ec6918.4919901@news.erols.com>
markcts@erols.com (Mark) writes:
>>I'm trying to lay down a vocal track with reverb
(Alesis Wedge).
>>During the actual recording the monitor vocals
sound crisp, deep and
>>solid, but upon playback from my analog MT100II
4-track they seem kind
>>of washed out, with a heavy low end ( yes, dbx
and EQ are out). This
>>happens no matter what Wedge patches I use.
>
>Try
recording the vocals dry. Then, on playback listen
to them. Are they okay? If they are clean but dry, then
try using the Wedge on mixdown and see what it sounds
like.
>
>If it still doesn't sound right, you may just be a
victim of poor quality digital reverb. But first get it
to sound right before the reverb.
>
>And, of course, realize that your voice always sound
thinner on tape than it does in your head....
>--scott
>--
>"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres
precis."
>
It's
interesting you mentioned this as there is a way to record
your voice exactly as it sounds to yourself.
Danny
Glover (the actor/producer; Lethal Weapon and many others)
is doing just that in LA (this week) as directed by the
guys at Skywalker Sound using a set of DSM microphones
worn by Danny as he narrates in a sound booth. This gives
an excellent you-are-inside the narrator's head dry stereo
soundtrack that can
be enhanced later with EFX to sound like it's taking place
in different ambiences (to fit the visuals).
| | |
