OTHER MICS VERSES
DSM |
||
(Continued from page
11) I have a concert recording job coming up in February. Although my previous jobs have obviously been well received since I'm getting repeat business, I am not personally satisfied with one aspect of them -- Audio. The concert will be filmed in a large, acoustically pleasant, church. To get the best audio possible I have previously made arrangements to plug one of my cameras directly into the sound board. This gives me crystal clear sound along with a video image to aid in syncing with my other two cameras. The problem is that it doesn't give me much in the way of crowd noise (applause, laughs, etc..) and also doesn't impart the ambiance of the venue. In other words, it results in a sound that is almost studio like. I can handle adding some echo and such to the sound in post to give it more of a live feel, but have problem adding in crowd sounds. I have the following equipment at my disposal: A)
1 Canon XL1 I
have considered buying some of the Core Sound cardioid mics and
mixing them in with the stage mics. They would have to be placed For the shoot I will have one of the TRVs on basically a static wide shot somewhere in the back center of the crowd. The XL1 will handle most of the concert close up work with the other TRV getting coverage shots of the crowd. One
of the thoughts I had is to make several independent recordings
and figure out which is the best in post; or possibly try to mix
to I'm willing to spend another $400 or so filling out my equipment, and the Core mics were just an idea. Anyone have any ideas on how to get the best recording possible that can be edited into the video? ------- Kirby Axxxxxxx >> Cardioids are inherently wrong for getting ambiance for obvious technical reasons, they're directional with awful sounding side rejection. Matched Dual omnis are the type of mics to have, but just spacing these out on a t-bar raised to some height is not enough to capture surround ambients in a coherent manner and the spaced pickups will have audible comb-filter effects that most often get in the way big--time. The need to record a natural sounding ambient that will hold up in post leads to the use of the HRTF baffled omni microphone method that uses the dual matched omni mics mounted on a special acoustic baffle that's modeled to our own head's acoustic responses to the acoustic surround ambient. This is really the kind of mic system you want to capture all of the live feel of any scene. There's a discussion of this type of microphone and method on my web site along with many models of very precision matched omni and the mic stand/boom mountable LiteGUY HRTF baffle. URLS:
http://www.sonicstudios.com/multitrk.htm Many small record labels are using the LiteGUY baffle mounted DSM mics to easily produce very high quality CD releases from DAT tape of live performances. Your application for this type of stereo mic extends beyond just this one live music event to anytime you want to document a clear surround-sound ambient to go along with any video or film production. Core sound mics can work well for some Rock concert type work but not as well for non-PA'd acoustic (mic noise) scenes. Also, they do not work well with the decks mic power and mostly require the use of external 'battery box' and occasional use of line level inputs to keep from mic amplifier overloads to get acceptable results. Your Sharp MD is perfect for use with any suitable DSM model (likely DSM-6S/M) and will be directly powered to full performance by the "plug-in-power" feature provided by Sharp on ALL their MD portables. Experience is often the best teacher (with a little help from your friends here) and every job presents the opportunity for challenge to expand your knowledge, required equipment inventory, and the overall ability for meeting each job's minimum professional requirements.
Regards in Sound & Music Recording, <<Subject: Re: Concert Recording From: "Richard S@webzone.net> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:03:23 -0600 What "obvious" technical reasons make cardiods wrong? Seems to me that if you mostly want sound from the stage speakers, and *some* crowd ambience, a cardiod would be a perfect choice. Aren't our ears somewhat directional like cardiods? Richard<<
Ears use pressure omni type sensing coupled to wave reflecting AND fractionation surfaces (convoluted ears) mounted on an absorptive baffle device (our head). This creates an interference acoustic pressure field pattern (analogy like shadow, moire, and rainbow effects all at the same time) that our brain translates into directional and dimensional information. This is the workings of psycho-acoustics where extremely complex holographical type information is 1st sensed and then processed by our genetically trained brain. A little more about this at: http://www.sonicstudios.com/multitrk.htm We don't as yet have computational ability and skills to do this kind of processing in real time and our HRTF working models are mostly too simplified for consistent synthesis in making or decoding this kind of information especially for multiple sources common in real ambient environments. Because we hear sounds in a general manner because of genetics, we actually want to hear recorded sounds mic'd in a similar 'pre-processed manner.' Unfortunately, we now automatically make big concessions with hearing any kind of recorded material because of the way the industry has NOT progressed to better understanding of recording methods for virtual reality purposes. Can't really blame them, keeping everybody beating around the techno 'proverbial' bush sells lots of shoes and cold drinks. Anyway, now you got me going! Let me know if I actually answered your question Richard. Cardioids
are really useful for MONO multi-track with side -rear rejection
ability that reduces vocal to PA & stage monitor feedback and
reduces interferring adjacent multitracked instrument sounds when
close mic'ing methods are used on stage and for studio session work.
They are mostly problem solving microphones that greatly sacrifice
acoustic fidelity to avoid potential off For recording live events where acoustic quality or fidelity and a true feeling of 'being there' is important, you really don't want to use anything but a HRTF baffled omni microphone type system. Regards in Sound & Music Recording, Leonard Lombardo Subject:
Re: Concert Recording >From:
Kirby A@my-deja.com> >Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:25:09 GMT The most costly element for baffled omni mic system is the HRTF baffle. Replicating the acoustic response of water saturated tissue is no easy accomplishment and the raw material costs for the LiteGUY are impressive. However, there is a far less costly way that may be suitable for this your present project. Usually, using a baffle is a must when working close proximity to noisy and talkative crowds common at popular music venues these days. You need to get at least 8- 10 feet up and away from this crowd noise to get a good overall ambient mix. In your situation, the audience may be more respectful and allow someone seated (or standing) to record just as good an ambient sound from somewhere within the close stage to half back into the hall. This person would know how use the Sharp MD deck and personally headwear the mics (this is a real HRTF baffle). Head position should be facing stage forward with no looking left-right head turns, at least while recording; up-down head-mic motions to check the deck's VU are not usually noticeable. Quiet clothing (cotton is best) and wearing no loose, noisy jewelry is highly recommended. Keeping people directly adjacent from audibly talking, rustling paper programs, making squeaky chair noises, and jingling jewelry items is a matter of luck and timing, or planning on having a buffer of people 'in the know' around the mic position to keep the peace. Getting some buffer distance from close-up audience noise is your best friend in most these situations. Obviously, using a HRTF baffle on a tripod stand up 8-15 feet in the air makes the most sense in the long run. This where mic position for best ambient mix while not being in the way of anything important are the only considerations for getting a good ambient sound. Regards in Sound & Music Recording, Leonard Lombardo Subject: Re: Concert Recording "Martian Wxx" <xxx@hotmail.com> writes: Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 13:50:13 GMT He he he ............ I tell ya what if i have to tape another concert with his darn Tree mic stand in the middle of the screen sticking out like a sore thumb, i am gonna SCREAM!!! GuySonic
Reply: Views of any microphone has always been a logistical
problem when dealing with live audience, Video/live TV broadcast,
and Film productions where the line of site is best kept unobstructed.
The live line-of-site audience situation may allow a little more
flexibility in that ambient microphone position well above most
seated views is usually not difficult to implement and moderate
distances from even a head-sized all pitch-black colored HRTF mic
baffle make this blend well from spectator views that might partially
include it. truly there are two types of concerts and two types of recordings that which is a concert (101 piece instrument) and that which is a noisy rock band so that wasn't to well defined in this thread, as somebody's mics would crumble in the latter situation somehow i don't think you have to worry about somones jewlery being audible at a stones concert or for that matter even someone yelling for a medic :-) ------ That
'mic system' MAY ALSO include having at least one bass rolloff filter
frequency (a.k.a., Hi-Pass and LoCut) at your disposal for gracefully
handling that 'Stones' type job or an On-the-street-Interview session
where all that motor vehicle rumble captured is (especially if using
a pressure type omni like DSM), competing with the intelligibility
of softly spoken conversation. Choosing
mic sensitivity and a table of mic models for any particular range
of applications are at: http://www.sonicstudios.com/dsm.htm Tips
on 'Avoiding mic/line input overload distortion' on DAT/MD portables
is discussed at: http://www.sonicstudios.com/tips.htm and the two types of recordings that which is precisely recorded to be played back on dat or cd with headphones and represents the actual highs and lows of the volume of a real concert and has apropriate stereo seperation for ONE THING, a pair of headphones. and that which plays back on 3" stereo speakers on the average home television requires compression to sound ANYTHING like it did in the building and so the poor consumer doesnt go from not being able to hear it above the fan in thier heater, to having it so LOUD that they cant hear themselves think. and having an Excess of stereo seperation so we can hear any seperation at all, when it comes out of the average telvision speakers 2 feet away from each other. AND THE TWO OF THEM WILL NEVER MEET :-) You know i was hired to do this stuff for classic concerts videotape and of course i was told to NOT ADJUST THE AUDIO ok well that may be fine for the CD which we made but it does not work for the video Does anybody know WHY because be they omni or uni or short shotgun MICS do not pick up the same way as the human ear I dont care if you payed $7000 for them it is not the same. in
the seat at the concert i can hear the slightest tink of the Triangle
i am oblivious to the sounds of the people coughing and gasping
around me when the cymbals Clash in thier thunderous roar i dont
run out of the theatre holding my ears screaming in pain but an
unadjusted mic and 5-100w of amplification just doesnt work that
way the low volume times are way too low and you cant hear enough I will gladly admit that this $7000 mics system on the tree in the center 9 miles in the air was the most perfect cleanest beautifull sound that i have ever heard reproduced, as long as you had the $500 headphones on, and it stayed in perfect uncompressed digital format. but it is not the majority that would ever listen to it that way. and it has little to Nothing to do with VIDEO
------ Appropriate
choice of microphone and methodology is at the heart of making recordings
of EXACTLY WHAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY HEAR, or conversely, RECORDING
ONLY WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR at any chosen place and to sound like
you intended when reproduced on whatever range of playback equipment
deemed likely for the final product. Mastering done in post-production is responsible for making any recording's dynamics more "accessible" for the target audience that's known to have a certain range of playback equipment limitations and soft, loud, directly seated, or for wallpaper only listening type preferences. I have to admit that in my younger (and most naive) days, I considered the use of audio compression in HiFi media an evil thing. But back then I had no close neighbors to disturb and my speaker systems got to be 4500 watt RMS horsepower rated Tri-Amp'd systems to cleanly produce 125 dB SPL down to 25 cycles and 115 dB SPL at 15 cycles! I live in more humble (and hopefully wiser) times now within a small city neighborhood and find myself mostly listening to mastered recordings on a variety of the very same low power/small speaker systems in common use by the majority. This being the case now, I have a lot to say in favor of tasteful employment of dynamic compression techniques (like those featured in Syntrillium's Cool Edit Pro) to make the mastered audio much more "accessible" to a wider audience under those same real-world situations mentioned. The heaviest compression personally used here was recently of an impromptu acoustic campfire seated group of vocal, ukulele, and tabula version "How'd you like to spend Christmas on Christmas island?" The performance was actually quite OK, but the HRTF mic positioning was impossible; the ensemble's instruments were way too distantly spread for having close to a half-good dynamic mix. Everything was way off, but I resisted throwing this in the garbage (because I very much liked the whimsical nature of the tune's lyrics+ ukellele+ tabla) and tried a very radical amount of finely tuned compression that made every musical element take about 4 steps forward and stand together in a most unexpected natural sounding way. This worked out so well that I've made two short sample clips of before and after the dynamic compression; mostly to share my amazement of what is possible with a good performance that has a terrible loud-soft mix of elements. This "merit of using compression example" will be on the site within a month as there'll be more storage and bandwidth about then. ------ >Subject:
Re: Concert Recording From:
"Martian W xxxxxxxx@hotmail.com Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:05:49
GMT Any baffle is better than no baffle with dual omni. Now with that said, if you make it different from what's needed for true HRTF response, then the mic will operate differently, and the recording will always sound differently and have unpredictable variations with different types of playback systems. The experience with the Jecklin disc and derivatives (which seems very similar to yours BTW), is proven not consistent and throws all sorts of unexpected curves on how the recording will actually come out sounding like; sometimes it can work out sounding quite nicely, but mostly not like you actually heard it and it can often be too far off from reality to be easily usable for prime-time. That's
the problem with different mics and methods, we already have a lot
of 'different,' but there's always room for more to keep all but
the most experienced recordist successful, at least most of the
time even if it takes the additional advantage of post tools and
the time and experience to make 'different' sound at least OK. QUESTION IS: 'Do You Feel Real Lucky? .... DO YA? ..... had enough 'different yet?! ... have ya? ...... Anyway, the point is, if not really sure or really lucky, then I know you'd do far better with a proven true HRTF mic for at least recording consistently what you are naturally hearing at any particular location when that's your goal. Bottom Line: Different from what's heard live is too often times NOT BETTER by most people's sensible measure of hearing. |
||
