Why do people care about gear measurements when most rooms suck?

[fas42]

I do not know what you mean by "common sense recording techniques" -- how much recording have you done? Putting a mic way out in the hall does not match my definition of "common sense recording technique", but I have not heard that term used. There are many techniques, and virtually all involve closer mic placement than you seem to be advocating.

I haven't done any recording, but "common sense" to me means that if I want to hear what something, like a musical event, sounds like from a certain place, like an excellent seating position in a cathedral or hall, then I would put microphones in that position.

With regard to mic'ing speech, yes, obviously using the same mic it will sound very different. Speaking close there will be close to zero ambience captured because the gain of the recorder has to be turned right down; if at a significant distance there will be the same voice, with lots of ambience of the environment mixed in. The sort of thing that often is "nice" to hear on a recording ...

Frank

 

[Bruce B]

I haven't done any recording, but "common sense" to me means that if I want to hear what something, like a musical event, sounds like from a certain place, like an excellent seating position in a cathedral or hall, then I would put microphones in that position.

The only recordings I've seen where the mic is at a listener's position out in the hall are binaural recordings. Most of the time, the mics are placed between the edge of the stage or closer to the orchestra. I heard a Fennell recording last night where the mics are between the conductor and the orchestra.

 

[fas42]

Just had a thought: would anyone be aware of any experiment done where the same mic configuration was set up at different distances, say from an orchestra, going into the audience space, and the same single performance was captured in a single take from say, 3 to 4 such positions. The real point would be to have all those takes available to listen and compare to each other: would be fascinating to see how the differences in the "quality level" of the playback equipment and environment would then impact on people's reactions to the different versions ...

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Just had a thought: would anyone be aware of any experiment done where the same mic configuration was set up at different distances, say from an orchestra, going into the audience space, and the same single performance was captured in a single take from say, 3 to 4 such positions. The real point would be to have all those takes available to listen and compare to each other: would be fascinating to see how the differences in the "quality level" of the playback equipment and environment would then impact on people's reactions to the different versions ...

Frank

This experiment has been done many times over many years as the people who record professionally have, through shared knowledge and experience, developed the best techniques. I told you I knew some people who record live, in performance spaces, professionally, and I'd ask why recording from the middle of the hall doesn't sound good, while listening from there can be quite gratifying. This is the answer I got from the best of them:

2 reasons that are interrelated. Very briefly:
1. Mics record - people listen - different process.
2. As you move away from the source, the ratio between the source of the sound, and the space the sound is recorded in changes. The brain compensates, mics don't.
Many books on the subject.
Also look here for interesting info

http://www.dpamicrophones.com/en/Microp … tereo.aspx

Don't ask me how the brain compensates (an even better question might be why it doesn't compensate when listening to the recording). As he says above, there are many books on the subject, I'm sure you can look into it if you're interested. But that's the part - the brain's compensation - that "doesn't make sense," Frank. The recording process? He made perfect sense of it above in a single sentence: "As you move away from the source, the ratio between the source of the sound, and the space the sound is recorded in changes."

Ambient mush. You don't hear it sitting in that seat. But recording from there is just bad technique.

So what can we conclude from all of this?

That microphones don't hear like ears do.
That recording equipment doesn't record like brains listen.
That the professionals who make the recordings we play on our systems understand this, even if we don't, and use microphones and recording equipment the way they work best and hopefully, sounds more natural, but it is not natural. The ratio between the sound and the space has been manipulated to create a facsimile of the real relationship between music and space; the recording is the original event.

Or at least it's the closest thing we have.

Tim

 

[fas42]

Thanks for doing that, Tim, I appreciate your having asked your contacts, and getting good feedback. I'll make some major efforts checking out that link, and further Googling as necessary.

Cheers,
Frank

 

[fas42]

Well, have had a bit of a look around around via Google, and I'm getting a different story what's been said here so far. Essentially the distance from the source is a preference thing, what the person recording the event is after in terms of the balance between direct and ambient sound; more ambience, get further away from the source. No hard and fast rules about never getting greater than some arbritary distance from the source. If anything, they caution about getting too close, too much high frequency is picked up and the sound is unbalanced.

As regards recording an organ, in Gearslutz people ask very specifically how to capture such an instrument, and the answers from people with direct experience are exactly the sort of thing I would have expected before getting into this thread: things like a 1/3 of the way back in the building; edge of the balcony; walk around the space until it sounds best to your ears and use that spot; make sure you record the room, not the instrument.

This is quite different from what's been mentioned here ...

Frank

 

[RBFC]

Many engineers don't worry about backing off with the mikes to capture ambience, they merely add some reverb during mixing.

There are many variables involved in every aspect of recording. Different mikes may prefer near-field vs. far-field positioning to achieve the desired spectral balance. Then, although frequency response is in the sweet spot, the capture of space and reflected energy is suboptimal. Then, you get the mikes all positioned perfectly, and the humidity changes....

It's a Zen art with deep roots in science and experience IMHO.

Lee

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Well, have had a bit of a look around around via Google, and I'm getting a different story what's been said here so far. Essentially the distance from the source is a preference thing, what the person recording the event is after in terms of the balance between direct and ambient sound; more ambience, get further away from the source. No hard and fast rules about never getting greater than some arbritary distance from the source. If anything, they caution about getting too close, too much high frequency is picked up and the sound is unbalanced.

I don't think that's any different from what you've been hearing here at all, Frank. Closer, more direct. further, more ambience....until you reach my "ambient smear." Preference? Sure. It's all preference.

As regards recording an organ, in Gearslutz people ask very specifically how to capture such an instrument, and the answers from people with direct experience are exactly the sort of thing I would have expected before getting into this thread: things like a 1/3 of the way back in the building; edge of the balcony; walk around the space until it sounds best to your ears and use that spot; make sure you record the room, not the instrument.

The organ may have been a bad example, as they are typically built into the room and made to work with it, but take Gearslutz with a grain of salt. That's mostly a home recordists site, not a pro one.

This is quite different from what's been mentioned here ...

Again, I don't think it's different at all. You love to experiment, you should find out for yourself. Get your self to a church or another large, ambient room, and get someone to play piano. Record it from up close, then walk out and sit in the middle of the space and record it there. You may like it, that is certainly an option. But I guarantee you that you won't hear what you hear on good live recordings, because they're simply not made that way. It may be a "preference" according to the guys on gearslutz, but it's a preference the pros don't have. I have a lot of live recordings. None of them were made solely from a seat in the house. I can tell by the sound of them.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Many engineers don't worry about backing off with the mikes to capture ambience, they merely add some reverb during mixing.

Or they set up multiple mics in the room so they can mix a little of the room ambience in with the close-mic'd signal.

Tim

 

[Bruce B]

Or they set up multiple mics in the room so they can mix a little of the room ambience in with the close-mic'd signal.
Tim

This is what I've done many times. I add just a touch of the room mics with the direct sound. Works like a charm!

 

[fas42]

Hmmm, still haven't found anything on recording pipe organs that different from the thoughts mentioned in my last post. The following thread has a very comprehensive response, hopefully considered "professional" enough!

http://recording.org/mobile-recording/27467-anyone-ever-recorded-liverpool-cathedral-organ.html

Frank

 

[microstrip]

You will find the answers to many of the questions raised in this thread in the "The Recording Engineer's Handbook" by Bobby Owsinski . This very interesting and accessible book is full of information about how microphones work, includes a very comprehensive database on classical microphones, a summary on recording techniques and its sound characteristics, and even some interviews with sound engineers. I quote from it

" First of all, stereo miking is an improvement over mono miking because it provides:
A sense of the sound field from left to right.
A sense of depth or distance between each instrument.
A sense of distance of the ensemble from the listener.
A spatial sense of the acoustic environment—the ambiance or hall reverberation.


Types of Stereo Miking
There are four general mic techniques used for stereo recording, each with a different sound and different sets of benefi ts and disadvantages:

Coincident pair (including X/Y, M-S and Blumlein)
Spaced pair
Near-coincident pair (the famous ORTF method)
Baffl ed-omni pair or artificial head

"

If you insert any of the previous sentences in google you will find part of the book in goggle books.

 

[DonH50]

For large'ish groups I typically use a stereo pair, usually X-Y though M-S can be effective, with an omni "ambiance" mic set up perhaps 20' from the stage (depending upon the venue) to provide a little live "background" feed. Plus whatever solo mics are needed, bearing in mind they may be used to capture a section, not just an individual player, and to help with the later mix down. Small groups I usually individually mic, though for small acoustic/vocal groups a pair set up maybe 3' - 6' in front of the group often works well.

Pipe organs are a special case because the pipes are in different places and may be split into sections. How I set up mics depends on where the pipes are... I would not group pipe organ with any other groups of recording techniques.

For me, anyway. I must note that the last professional recording I did was probably ten years ago; since then, just now and then, for fun. Since I cannot hope to compete with Frank and the Internet for technique, I'll bow out of this discussion. - Don

 

[fas42]

Pipe organs are a special case because the pipes are in different places and may be split into sections. How I set up mics depends on where the pipes are... I would not group pipe organ with any other groups of recording techniques.

For me, anyway. I must note that the last professional recording I did was probably ten years ago; since then, just now and then, for fun. Since I cannot hope to compete with Frank and the Internet for technique, I'll bow out of this discussion. - Don

Yes, pipe organs are a special case; all the comments I came across were of the style of "don't even think about trying to mic parts of the organ". One very clear reason is that these beasts are very mechanical constructions, and up close you pick up lots of mechanical clattering, rattling, and whooshing of air, a bit like getting too close to a tweeter!

Don, I'm not trying to knock you down or anything silly like that; I'm just trying to get a solid understanding of something, and if you want to do that it's always a good idea to see what a whole lot of people have to say about it, to see if there is a general consensus. So sorry if I have offended you ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

As probably the last round, and this now covers a couple of points Tim mentioned, from the "STEREO RECORDING
with DPA Microphones" document, on the website that Tim posted earlier:

Procedure
The first step is to select a distance between the
sound source(-s) and the microphone setup . Please
note that the ideal distance from the microphone
pair to the sound source depends not only on the
type and size of the sound source and on the sur-
roundings in which the recording is to be made,
but also on individual preference .
The mix of direct and diffuse sound in a recording is
also of crucial importance . Therefore, considerable
time should be used in establishing the optimum
positioning of the microphones .
Be aware, that all directional information from the
room will be reproduced in front of you in a 2-chan-
nel stereo playback system . Placement of the AB set-
up closer than expected, will consequently give a
more appropriate direct to diffuse sound balance . It
is also here the versatility of our AB Stereo Kits can
be considered . Using the different acoustical modi-
fication devices for the microphones, the amount of
ambience and the tonal colour of the recording can
be adjusted without adding any noise . The choice
of floor and ceiling mounting of the boom gives
you added flexibility when positioning the micro-
phones .

Frank

 

[Orb]

Well to bring it back on subject, anyone else take a look at Ken's (Marantz senior engineer) room and what he has to say in the links I provided

Cheers
Orb

 

[fas42]

Fair enough, and have just done so. Some things stand out:

* Audiophiles' rooms are overdamped and "dead": big tick from me, I've said before I don't like them, they're "weird or what?".
* Can't have big dynamics in a small room: disagree strongly, but then again, he likes small two-ways, I like the man!
* "so much digital equipment is generating noise, mains cables are very important. The influence of external equipment is unbelievable." : very, very big tick ...

Very impressive chap, I like his style of thinking.

Frank

 

[Bruce B]

Orchestral/Choral recording

 

[RBFC]

Very cool, Bruce!

Edited because nobody laughed.....

Lee

 

[amirm]

Lovely video and music Bruce! Had no idea that kind of music making was happening in Kenmore .