|
|
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).
Vocalists
can also use the DSM headworn technique and shifting the
microphones forward (nearer the temples) or backward gives
a tonal shift that's brighter near the temple positioning.
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: Orchestra micing question
From:
GuySonic (guysonic@aol.com)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro Date: 1999/02/12
In
article <kludgeF6yxM7.LJL@netcom.com>, kludge@netcom.com
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
>subject:
Re: Orchestra micing question
>From: kludge@netcom.com (Scott Dorsey)
>Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 02:30:06 GMT
>
>In
article <36C22D75.521D8019@indigo.ie> Daire
Winston <beech@indigo.ie writes:
>>I'm going to record a full orchestra, rhythm
section and lead vocalist
>>in a live in a concert hall this summer and
I would appreciate any
>>thoughts as to how to mic the individual sections
within the orch. I
>>will obviously use a stereo pair of room mics
but what it we need to
>>boost the 1st violins or the flutes etc. at
the mix.
>
>Then, you tell the conductor, "Hey, boost the
violins" and he signals them to play louder.
>
>You get the orchestra pickup balanced, and he'll
get the orchestra itself balanced. That's his job.
>
>Spot-miking is possible, and depending on the vocalist
and the rhythm section (and whether they get PA), you
may well have to spot mike those. But the orchestra
itself is one entity, and you should mike it like one
entity.
>
>There are good reasons to spot-mike orchestral sections,
mostly having to do with bad hall acoustics or PA leakage,
but it's not for the faint of heart, and I don't recommend
doing it on your first orchestral gig.
>It's very easy to screw up balances and it's impossible
not to screw up tonality.
>--scott
>
>--
>"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres
precis."
>
>
Recording
a complex ensemble of mostly acoustic instruments in
a satisfying manner has always been extra challenging.
A different philosophy of microphone for recording this
in pure 2-channel stereo has many advantages and some
disadvantages.
Orchestra,
chorus, solo piano types of acoustic recording is most
critically judged against any live memory impressions
we chance to have at least once if not many times in
a lifetime. Most other popular forms of recorded music
have little need for any 'reality check' with needing
few 'ambient acoustic' qualities to be satisfying. As
such, popular using of close mic'd and multitrack mix
+ EFX in post processing provides an 'electronic' but
satisfying non-reality quality that is quite acceptable.
As
Scott more than hinted in his reply, using spot mics
to add volume to into a predominately natural acoustic
mix, easily throws at least the 'tonal qualities' into
a spin that is rarely but partially recoverable.
Using
a single stereo microphone positioned 'as well as possible'
to record all sounds with no other microphone(s) in
the mix gives the most consistent satisfaction under
less than optimum orchestra staging or 'allowed' mic
position during performance. It's far less disturbing
to notice one of the sections are a bit too loud or
soft than to have to endure an entire recording of off
color tones and displaced images.
I
would suggest recording any and all practice sessions,
especially those in the performance hall to fine tune
what works best in simple and natural sounding stereo
without spot mics. If the vocals are PA mic'd, consider
recording a mono track of this (and only the vocal)
to be worked carefully into the stereo tracks in post
or if feeling lucky, mix it into the stereo during the
recording.
My
site describes 'my own favorite' (ambient) stereo microphone
for this type of recording. This is a paired HRTF baffled
omni method that's unique enough to be patented. The
LiteGUY mic baffle (the dual omni mic mount) is black
Ultra-Suede and can 'disappear' if not in direct line-of-sight
of the camera, allowing both satisfying sound and easy
placement that's far less critical than most other stereo
mic configurations you could also consider using.
In
my opinion, it's far better to go for the more satisfying
live feel of naturally mic'd stereo than to go for getting
everything perfect in volume and losing most of the
'musical emotion' content as mostly happens with orchestra
spot mic mixed recordings. It's definitely a matter
of choice of what's more important to the enjoyment
of the music for the masses. Does this choice always
have to be the recording engineer's notorious addiction
to electronically equalizing recorded volume levels
of orchestral elements?
This almost always excludes the more important (in my
opinion) benefits and accesses able enjoyment of live
2- rack stereo recording that's more identical to our
live experiences of this music.
I
say, stand back a bit and record it in stereo like it
sounds to most of us as if we had the best possible
seat in the house! Ignore the need for perfect volume
level of all elements and gain the ability of convincingly
recording the 'experience'.
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: mic cable quality question
From:
GuySonic (guysonic@aol.com)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.proDate:
1999/02/08
In
article <79l67m$n7k$1@camel15.mindspring.com>, "morrison"
ultrevex@mindspring.com writes:
>Subject:
mic cable quality question
>From: "morrison" <ultrevex@mindspring.com>
>Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:09:12 -0500
>
>Yesterday, I was tracking female vox. The singer was
in my small booth, and
>signal path was mic(soundelux U195)-25 foot no-name
cable-sytek mic pre- a/d
>converter-DAW. This combo has only been up and running
for several days and
>I've been getting consistently better results with
time(as expected). Later
>in the session, we were fleshing out an idea and I
moved her into the
>control room. I left the long cable in the booth and
grabbed a 12 foot
>cable. equally 'no-name', non esoteric, unimpressive
local mom and pop
>music store type mic cable. The sound difference was
incredible. The
>shorter cable was letting much more presence through,
much more signal, just
>much more everything. My questions: barring the fact
that the first cable
>is shot, what was I hearing? Capacitance from the
long cable? Crummy cable
>quality? I plan on going thru my box of xlr's and
A/B'ing the lot but does
>anyone have any wisdom to impart in the meantime?
The first cable didn't
>sound bad until I heard the shorter one!
>
>Also, I doubt I'll replace every XLR cable in the
studio but I imagine it
>would be a good idea to get one 'snob' cable for overdubs.
Like most small
>places, once basic tracks are cut it's one overdub
at a time through one
>mic(at a time), one pre(at a time)and now, I guess,
one cable?
>
>How about cable favorites. I dont roll my own and
dont plan on dropping a
>stupid amount of money on a single cable. anyone heard
any appreciable
>differences?
>
>thanks
>Kevin Morrison
>
>
Even
with identical cable type, shorter is usually better in
general for having less high frequency attenuation and
the audible effects of cable reflections is less noticeable
with shorter lengths. Some cable types are better than
others of course, using less of any type is still preferred
over lack of benefits found using cable length to any
known advantage other than getting from here to there.
You
can minimize mic cable effects by using a short cable
to a mic preamplifier that in turn drives whatever long
cable is found necessary to access the mixer or recorder.
Preamplifiers, operating at driving cable at line levels,
have more cable drive/dampening ability than most microphone
outputs. This consistently produces a cleaner, more detailed
sounding 'mic feed' with most any quality of cable type.
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: mic cable quality question
From:
GuySonic (guysonic@aol.com)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.proDate: 1999/02/08
In
article <79m3v1$170@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "J.
Russell Lemon" lemon.j.russell@Worldnet.ATT.net writes:
>Subject:
Re: mic cable quality question
>From: "J. Russell Lemon" <lemon.j.russell@Worldnet.ATT.net>
>Date: 8 Feb 1999 07:32:49 GMT
>
>I probably don't know what I am taking about, but
I would suggest getting a cable that can pass the AES
digital format. Such cables have lower capacitance then
many old audio cables, and a more uniform impedance.
A cable that can pass AES digital without errors should
not lose presence when used for audio. Be sure to terminate
in image impedance.
>
> --- Russ
>
>
Suitable
AES cable is typically precision and 100 ohms impedance.
Driving & Terminating all cables at their nominal
impedance is good engineering but mpractical for most
electronics rated for 600 ohms or higher driving ability.
This
has always been the problem with effects of audio due
to cable effects, they're rarely terminated properly
or can be terminated properly by typical microphones
and preamplifiers. As a result, signals bounce and ring
causing all sorts of interesting effects, but this state
of affairs is has dubious value on the quality of all
audio subjected to even moderate cable lengths.
I
at one time designed some very different audio/video
cable that didn't require termination, but did require
good capacitance driving ability from the source; 600
ohm (or lower) driving ability usually worked well.
Beldon may consider this for manufacture sometime this
year if all goes well.
M
& K sound (many, many years ago) used 50 or 75 ohm
RF/video cable driven by custom cable drivers and terminated
at the cable impedance for remote location and studio
work. This allowed them to run cable for many hundreds
of feet to recording systems without any audible signal
distortions or fear of electrical noise interference.
While
the RF/Video cable itself solves many problems with
signal quality and noise issues, finding excellent quality
audio cable drivers for this task remains the real challenge.
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: How to stereo mic Grand Piano?
From:
GuySonic (guysonic@aol.com)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro Date: 1999/02/06
<< Subject: Re: How to stereo mic Grand Piano?
Eleven
Shadows wrote:
>
I think the ATM 31s are small diaphragm condensers that
are similar to ATM 33Rs
> and ATM 33a mics, but someone correct me if I'm
wrong. If that is the case, you
> can record the Yamaha with the lid open. There
are a zillion ways to record a
> piano, but what I would do is try x-y over the
piano, which usually works. I
> don't know what kind of music you are doing, but
as a general rule of thumb, for
> more New Agey sort of stuff, get them farther away
from the hammers; for certain
> kinds of classical and rock, get 'em a little closer.
However, with a lot of
> classical, having those mics backed off and to
the right of the piano player
> gives a more natural sound. Use your ear. A lot
of people do spaced pairs,
> choosing to hover the mics over the strings that
give it a more dynamic stereo
> spread.
>
> What I personally like doing is opening the lid,
but having the mics backed off
> so that they are outside, and placing the mics
at least three feet from the
> instrument. To my ear, this allows the sound to
blend and sound more natural.
> If you have a really great sounding room, try a
spaced pair of omnis. If you
> don't have access to that, you can try the two
Audio Technicas. I like to try
> both spaced and x-y and see which each result gets.
>
> If it's rock piano, it's often heavily compressed
to blend in with the rest of
> the music. In either case, the Audio Technicas
are probably pretty bright mics,
> and I personally find that bright mics frequently
help with the piano sound
> quite a bit.
> --
> Ken/Eleven Shadows, looking for a Super 8 camera
and Super 8 projector
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Eleven Shadows * ES songs on Real Audio * Music
Reviews * Travels:
> Peru-Ladakh-Kashmir-India-HK * Tibet * Real Audio
Radio Shows
> http://www.theeleventhhour.com/elevenshadows
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
As
Ken stated "there's a zillion ways to mic a piano"
for recording purposes. But there are just a few less
than a 'zillion' ways to get an acceptable 'piano
sound'. There are even fewer ways to mic for 'THE
sound of a piano'.
Placing
mics using the 'here and there' way, will reliable
get that 'piano sound' we've grown accustomed to hearing
in popular music tracks and there's almost a 'zillion'
ways to approach this to get a unique 'piano sound'
to fit the any occasion.
However,
If wanting to mic for a realistic 'sound of a piano',
the 'here and there' way of mic placement is NOT the
way to go, but ANY of the stereo microphone methods
discussed so far IS A WAY for intention of recording
a convincing 'real piano' sound. To succeed with this
however, presents far fewer ways (choices) of mics
and 'using method' and presents a far greater 'skill
level' challenge and/or being 'very lucky' to consistently
get satisfactory results. Far from being impossible,
it's at least much more
difficult for a number of good reasons.
The
intention of recording piano realistically involves
a stereo mic method as the output of these is two
channels much like our own two channel hearing way
of hearing sounds. So stereo mics need to record two
different perspective that will most satisfy our natural
hearing sense. For
us to be convinced of hearing a real piano within
a recording, the stereo mic must record sound in a
'unique' way that includes 'psycho-acoustical' information
within the two tracks of recorded audio. While the
'psycho-acoustical' information necessary for us to
hear a convincing sound of a piano is 'unique', the
uniqueness of the stereo mic/method of using such,
should not be TOO uniquely different from our own
way of 'uniquely' hearing sounds.
And
here's the rub of the stereo mic methods discussed
so far: They can easily be far TOO unique and present
only a 'partial set' of proper psycho-acoustical cues;
often including (free of charge) a whole new unique
set of strange (to our normal hearing) sound cues
that are not 'coherent' or recognized (without doing
'mental' conversion type interpretation work) as part
of a real sounding piano.
The
stereo mics discussed so far are unique to each other
(including us) in larger or smaller degree with mic
placement rather critical to each new ambient situation.
Because critical placement is often different with
each 'type' of stereo mic/method (assuming the same
ambient working condition), being able to listen yourself
for an acceptable 'heard acoustic mix' of instrument
and ambient (room, hall, etc.) is ALL IMPORTANT.
However,
because of the degree of 'TOO much uniqueness' of
each stereo method discussed, just listening will
not reliably work unless you're (as mentioned earlier)
very lucky. What you hear is NOT OFTEN ENOUGH what
you'll record with stereo microphones and you'll need
a lot of experience, luck, and/or time for the 'trial
and error' record/playback procedure necessary to
avoid disappointment from having assumed too much.
I would be much nicer to learn to quickly hear a microphone
position (music + ambient mix), plunk the microphone
right there, and roll tape (or spin hard drive) and
be much more assured of getting what you heard because
the stereo microphone is not so unique to our own
perceptions of sound.
There's
only one stereo microphone 'way' that'll consistently
allow the 'what you hear is what you record' assumption
regardless of situation. That microphone is a 'Head
Related Transfer Function' (HRTF) type of stereo microphone
that uses a unique baffle between two very small,
precision matched omni mics.
This
type of stereo microphone is rarely discussed or mentioned
(at least here) perhaps because it's TOO much a 'no
brain'R'??
Not
being challenging, needing much skill, being lucky,
or having the immense joy of doing multiple tests/retakes
makes this type of stereo microphone hard to act expert
about for sure, and may as such, be generally ignored
by the standard knowledge base of available microphone
experts.
As
far as I can tell from being around here for over
5 years, it might just be working too well(!) dampening
the joy of endless discussion of all the challenging
ways 'uniqueness' in microphone 'perception' adds
to our pursuit for convincingly real (ambient acoustic)
recordings (if that's your aim). If mic/method solves
a lot of previous problems, what will the 'problem
solvers' now do? This remains a real 'bureaucratic
type' challenge and seems worth much discussion of
what to do next when 'favorite' discussed problems
are threatened to be solved for good, making other
options less accessible in appearing like good advice.
Fortunately,
I'm here and again helping those who truly desire
to make their recording more consistently real acoustically
sounding with the experience, good advice, and the
hardware to back up where my mouth is. As with many
expert recordists, microphone companies refuse to
adopt new microphone designs while the inventor still
lives and breathes. If you doubt this, look for finding
the persons responsible for the classic stereo microphone
methods discussed here, (Blumlien, Soundfield, etc.)
they've virtually all died years before any of these
'now highly discussed' methods were allowed real commercial
production/availability or regarded as a mic technique
worthy of discussion.
Things
being as they are, no need to wait till I'm 'dead
and gone' to get THE stereo microphone right now (only
lacking any discussion of such from those 'teaching'
the old standards of recording art), as I'm one of
those very rare inventors that is able to produce
products without the 'recording industry acceptance'
due or scheduled sometime after my passing. My web
site has the necessary details on THE stereo microphone
that is very NON-assuming or in most ways non-unique
to how we hear sounds; what your hear is exactly what
you'll record; 'relearning' to trust normal hearing
IS going to be tough on the 'old timers' used to sticking
one finger in an ear between retakes. But while there's
still life, learning is possible!
Please,
don't all thank me at once for my dedicated efforts!
Just
go out there and make it sound more real for the old
GUY!!!
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: How to stereo mic Grand Piano?
From:
GuySonic (guysonic@aol.com)Newsgroups:
rec.audio.proDate: 1999/02/08
In
article <36BC08EC.86AD1A53@santa-monica-ca.com>,
Eleven Shadows elevenshadows@santa-monica-ca.com> writes:
>Subject:
Re: How to stereo mic Grand Piano?
>From: Eleven Shadows <elevenshadows@santa-monica-ca.com>
>Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 01:18:38 -0800
>
>> This type of stereo microphone
is rarely discussed or mentioned (at least here)
>> perhaps because it's TOO much a 'no brain'R'??
>
>The question was "how do I use ***the mics
I have*** to get the best sound."
>This is the original question:
>
>> I have SM57,
>>C1000, two ATM31s, an old small D Audio technica
omni, and an Astatic mic that
>>is a lot like a SM57. Going through a couple
single channel Tube MPs into an
>>Akia DSP12 Hard disk recorder. Any suggestions
on mic choice (other than get
>>better ones) and set up?
>
>Read the last sentence again.
>Great. Now read one more time and try and understand
what the guy is saying.
>
>> Fortunately, I'm here
and again helping those who truly desire to make their
>> recording more consistently real acoustically
sounding with the experience,
>> good advice, and the hardware to back up where
my mouth is.
>>
>> My web site has the necessary details on THE
stereo microphone that is very
>> NON-assuming or in most ways non-unique to
how we hear sounds; what your hear
>> is exactly what you'll record; 'relearning'
to trust normal hearing IS going to
>> be tough on the 'old timers' used to sticking
one finger in an ear between
>> retakes. But while there's still life, learning
is possible!
>>
>> Please, don't all thank me at once for my dedicated
efforts!
>
>If you're that hot of an engineer, you should be
able to get a good sound
>with inexpensive mics. Put your money where your
mouth is and tell this guy how
>to get a good sound with the equipment that he has.
I've tried to help him. Why don't you?
>
>--
>Ken/Eleven Shadows, looking for a Super 8 camera
and Super 8 projector
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Eleven Shadows * ES songs on Real Audio * Music
Reviews * Travels:
>Peru-Ladakh-Kashmir-India-HK * Tibet * Real Audio
Radio Shows
>http://www.theeleventhhour.com/elevenshadows
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
Ken,
you're correct in pointing out not regarding his equipment
limiting clauses enough and I was going mostly on the
thread discussion that followed + the original post's
stated desire to record a "piano in stereo".
I hope the possible (over) dramatic portions of my past
reply didn't completely mask the useful concepts presented.
>
If you have a really great sounding room, try a spaced
pair of omnis. If you
> don't have access to that, you can try the two
Audio Technicas. I like to try
> both spaced and x-y and see which each result gets.
> ------------ (Ken's post)
>A
piano is a mono source? I mic grands from 10-15 feet
away using a
Blumlein array and even at that distance, the piano
isn't mono. The room
reverb isn't mono either but that is another discussion.
With
piano, there can be a lot of experimentation. the
sound can be a
distant room sound all the way up to the very close
"head in the lid
sound" and this is just from a Blumlein array.
Other
techniques such as miking above the pianist's head
or from the far
end of the piano will produce results that may be
pleasing for different
styles of music.
AB,
XY, MS, ORTF, Blumlein, and other techniques will
give different
results. Some good some not-so-good.
-
Richard Kuschel
>
If
he does have a pair of resonably matched omni (at least
two of the same model/production run), then placing these
two mics on a HRTF (like the LiteGUY) baffle will allow
an easier way to record 'the sound of a piano" with
minimum expense and skill level. If he doesn't have or
want to get those two omni's you mentioned, then 'he can't
get there from here' using any other type of mic if recording
a realistic sounding piano is the goal with the available
mic limitation imposed.
Then
Richard opened the 'playing field' with naming (most all
other) stereo microphone methods regardless of mic closet
limitations. So here we are again. Ambient stereo recording
of convincing quality involves correctly matching the
perspectives of the microphone method with our own as
accurately as is possible. The stereo microphone (mics/methods)
previously mentioned, fall far short of this task and
don't look at all like 'us' in capturing ambient acoustic
information, but provide plenty of recorded variations
that are 'interesting' if not occasionally quite satisfying.
Our
hearing reception is neither directional like the Cardioid
nor like spaced microphones floating in space. Our baffles
(our head) is not a reflective disk (like with the Jecklin
Disc) nor made of plastic or foam (like the Aachen and
Neumann baffle). In short, all these approaches remain
as using methods and materials that have far too little
or no 'natural' acoustic perception mechanisms along with
a whole lot of 'unnatural mechanisms' by design. How a
recording engineer gets the best stereo performance from
such mic systems remains the true 'art' that's most discussed.
Unless you really need to reject some portion of the ambient
(suffering the usual image/sound distortions) considered
as interfering 'noise', there is only disadvantage to
using direction microphones in any kind of simple or fancy
(matriced) array.
The
acoustic recording process is only complex because acoustic
sound is complex and our recognition of perceived sound
is also complex. However, if the (stereo) microphone's
processing method is kept eloquent and natural (to us,
like HRTF baffled omni pair), then just a simple microphone
system is all that's needed to report the complexity of
the acoustic ambient to our also complex recognition mechanism
via recorded medium.
This
is more a situation where the preferred microphone/method
does not 'get in the way' of making an accurate (to our
perspectives) record of ambient sounds or does not add
unneeded confusion with strange ways (to us) of acoustic/electrical
signal processing.
Your
choice of a suitable omni mic pair to use with HRTF baffle
is really up to you as there are plenty of candidates
available, some with less than flat response that might
be exploited for providing brightness or similar tonal
effects. For the most accurate tonality/image, small sized
capsules of extended ruler flat hi-frequency bandwidth
have a decided advantage. Choices of available HRTF baffles
remains much more limited to those shown on my site.
Of
equal importance to piano recording is using stereo method
recording for other acoustic instruments from flute to
drum kit when depth and realism (as you'd hear it) sound
is the intention. With this, the ambient you're working
in can be a nightmare jungle to a paradise of sound (fill)
quality. Using acoustic traps (like ASC's) can help take
most of the jungle out of your available working spaces;
giving much control of the ambient quality and allowing
good results with trying less-than-close mic'd (mono or
stereo)
ambient recordings in general.
On
the Super 8 equipment, many of the camera repair shops
(especially in the larger metro areas) used to keep quite
a few of these around for spare parts if for nothing else.
Partially reconditioned with some cleaning and new lubrication
(very important), these should be available for just slightly
more than a song these days.
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:
Recording a cappela
From:
chris
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 23:02:27 -0600
Hello,
i was just approached to record an a cappela group..but before i
accept i needed to ask a question or two...if i could get some help
quick
it would really help me out.
My mic collection consists of these microphones
7 sm-57's
beta 58
1 akg 414
1 rode nt2
2 audiotechnica 4041's
2 beta 52's
with these mics..can i pull off recording 4 singers at once? i mean
sure
i can do it..but can i do it well enough ..etc.. and if you think
those
mics will work..how do you suggest seting them up?
I ask these questions ..because i am new to recoding a cappela but
have
seen the technic of X-Y ing two condensers and having the
group stand in
a circle around the mics...i have never really seen a mic slapped
on each
person in the studio. what would you ideas be if you were thrown
into
this situation???
THANKS
CHRIS
>>
Hello
Chris,
You are wise to research this 'most difficult' to record material.
Acappella is a harmonically complex ACOUSTIC sound. The blending
of all voices ACOUSTICALLY is what gives this style its unique power
to thrill.
Unfortunately, capturing harmony and 'the all-elusive-tag sounds'
is extremely difficult with standard mics and methods. Acappella
is a unique mix of close direct and a tasteful bit of live 'ambient'
that is very fragile to the sound recording process.
The most successful recording method is one that records this sound
as we hear it live and not translated by numerous close microphones
placement feeding a mixer. In addition, the usual stereo microphones
methods & microphones are mostly inadequate to give an acceptable
result unless much time is allowed for setup, rehearsal, playback,
and adjustment is planned from the start to get even an OK recording.
I know of quite a few that specialize in this style using
the patented DSM stereo mic method with easily obtained excellent
results.
Visit my web site and go to the Audio Mag. Review section (done
by Corey Greenberg last year) to read about how this works.
Also, check the multi-track recording article. If this
seems of interest, contact me with further questions and good luck
with recording acoustic music; there's nothing more satisfying than
pure acoustic to successfully record.
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo, Sonic Studios(tm)..."Making Audio History With
DSM(tm) Microphones"
------------------------------------------
<<
Subj: Re: b&k
Date:
98-02-10 04:39:04 EST
:
To: GuySonic@aol.com (INTERNET:GuySonic@aol.com)
Leonard,
I'm not using
the old DSM6 mics. which I bought in Dec.1992 at Uncle Stereo's
in Manhattan. Generally I tape rock shows though last year I taped
a lot of acoustic shows (Springsteen), but normally it's rock
shows in clubs or arenas. Only once or twice a year I tape some
rock shows at big arenas or the stadium. But I'd say on average
I tape 25 clubs, 6 arenas, 2 stadiums. Of course at big arenas
or stadiums the bass is much louder. However, that can be reduced
when playing the tape back by simply adjusting the "bass" button
on the amplifier, but instead I noticed lack of high frequencies
with the old DSM6. Normally when I playback my tapes I let the
bass button unchanged and instead add more treble.
I'll be glad to get your advice as to what's the best mic. for
my needs.
Thanks
Sal
>>
Hello
Sal,
Thank you for advisement on your current requirements.
This helps tremendously in determining what DSM mic system should
work best. You are using a DAT Deck?.....reminding
me of these facts is helpful when memory is not.....
You may have purchased a DSM mic that had a bit too much gain
for best loud bass sound recordings. There has always been
an education problem with retail sales people. Also,
over the years I've learned much more about what workes best for
certain requirements.
The DSM-6S/L (Low Gain) is indicated. Using the PA-6LC3
would allow 65 cycle normal Low frequency reduction when venue
Bass is excessively loud; use the 100 cycles ONLY for very rare
extreme bass heavy sound.
For Medium Bass Rock and PA'd acoustic, the 30 cycle switch allows
almost all the bass to be recorded for a full sound.
This should give you all the improvement necessary to allow completely
satisfying recording quality for PA'd club & Concert sound
venues. This system is still very usable for pure
acoustic if close enough and going to higher deck gain settings
when necessary to bring VU peaks to normal.
If you had a MOD-2 mic powering upgraded DAT deck (D100 with MOD-2
is now best available portable), then I'd recommend the PA-6LC
$125 (No Switch; 65 cycle fixed reduction) which is used when
necessary and not used for other venues that allow the mic to
be 100% powered by the deck without the adapter; makes a very
simple, extremely compact system with the fullest bass sound possible.
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo, Sonic Studios(tm)..."Making Audio History With
DSM(tm) Microphones"
-----------------------------------------------------
<< Subject: Miking Tabla drums?
From:
Al .nortel.ca>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 17:09:36 -0500
Anybody have any suggestions on how to mike Tabla Drums?
How about Marracas (sp?) and other types of unusual percussion
drums. What type of mike and position to use? I tried
a SM57
about 6 inches away and got a lot of high end hand noise.
I suppose
I should take a more ambient approach then and back the mikes
up
a few feet... Is there anybody out there that has actually
miked
Drums such as these and gotten a good sound?
--Al
>>
Hello
Al,
A medium close mic'd (4-10 foot) ambient stereo will give
more satisfying results. Sonic Studios site features the
DSM stereo mics and if you could read Corey Greenberg's Audio
Magazine review, in the reviews section, you'll get a good description
of the techniques to get very natural acoustic instument sound
recordings.
I've done moderate close proximity recordings of many types of
percussion instruments (single and in large groups) using this
technique, but have only at 20 foot distance audience recorded
the tabla in the group Oregon; all with very acceptable to
excellent results .
Exceptional results do depend on a good mix of ambient and direct
sound with this technique. The main DSM method advantage
is that what you're hearing is going to be what is reproduced
from the recording without the usual 'second guessing' prevalent
with most other mic techniques.
This saves a lot of necessary rehearsal and occasional real disappointment
that often follows from being on the steep part of the learning
curve using 'standard' mics and methods in a new recording situation.
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo, Sonic Studios(tm)..."Making Audio History With
DSM(tm) Microphones"
=====================================
<< Subj: Re: Your Payment Sent .... Cleared Customs
today and outfordelivery?
Date: 98-02-19 10:01:56 EST
From: powerpro
To: GuySonic@aol.com
Leonard,
I received the mics today. Thanks for your efforts.
Even though they
didn't result in me getting them faster, it helped put my mind
at ease.
I'm very pleased with the mics, and will let you know how the
recording
turns out tomorrow.
By the way, I plugged them into the mic input on my D100, and
played my
stereo VERY loud to get an idea of where to start with the level
meters.
Even when I cranked the levels to 10, the meters didn't go past
-12. So,
I'd like to ask you for a recommendation on where to start with
my levels.
I will probably start at around 7, so please let me know what
you think.
Of course I will use the -20db setting on my D100, and I'm told
that this
band plays very loud and bassy, so I will set the bass cut at
65, as was
recommended by another taper.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Peter
>>
Hello
Peter,
Thank you for quickly passing the good news of arrival!
Most all home stereos play considerably less loudly than you think
because the distortion factor goes up quickly and they just sound
loud.
The tact you plan on using the 20 db atten setting and the 65
bass setting seems correct for the 1st time. Your Level
knob setting can be all the way full to 10 if needed for desired
VU PEAK levels of anywhere from -12 db to 0 db. Best to
be a bit conservative (-12 to-6) so that as the band and soundman
warm up, you won't be caught short if average SPL levels
creep up when not watching.
Thank you for your order and patience. Enjoy!
Leonard
===========================================
Subj:
Thank you Will, Received Your order today! Questions/Comments
Date:
02/24/98
To: Bill
Hello Will,
Thank you for placing an order! Your satisfaction is
most important and I need to know a little more about your music
recording. The
DSM-6/M will be a good match for you if you're intending recording
traditional to moderately loud (no earplugs required) 'new age'
PA'd Jazz. For Rock recording, bands such as Phish, Zero,
and what used to be Grateful Dead style will also work well with
this particular mic.
However, for the above Rock type bands, bass roll off has never
been necessary and using this accessory may reduce the bass too
much, specially if not always used in the minimum roll off position
of 30 cycles. I realize that some of the larger concert
venues of even the soft-spoken Dylan have gotten quite loud lately
and bass has also been reported excessive in a few of his venues....
it's hard to tell when bass reduction is going to be needed with
some artists varying the presentation with location.
You can give the PA-6LC3 a period of seeing if recordings you
are mostly doing are sounding full enough for your tastes.
The Medium sensitivity should allow enough mic output use the
(L) setting on the D8 for most everything; this also helps to
give a fuller bass sound with Sony Mini-DAT decks.
I don't
see anything really wrong with your choice but would prefer for
most Jazz and 'moderate' Rock styles to use the D8 with MOD-2
without external powering adapter or bass reduction.
More compact equipment and 1 less connection. You can always
get the D8 Mic powering upgrade later or may consider going for
the quality improved D100 .... only if the D8 has many hours of
good use and is getting a bit worn out.
I'll send as ordered to get you started. Let me know if
you have any thoughts before I send today or later find you need
an adjustment to the original order request of mic an/or powering
options.
If being conservative with the D8 VU peaks at about -12 db, your
recordings should sound full (adequate bass) and very clean with
no bass muddyness (mics not too sensitive).
Best 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: 1-877-347-6642
==========================================
Subject:
Video Camera and Mic Question (no DAT content)
Date:
Thu, 26 Feb 1998 00:14:14 -0600
What's up fellow dat-heads. I am sorry for the "no dat-content"
post but I
figured posting here would get me the best responses on my question.
Anyways, here's the deal...I was planning on taping a local band
here in
Austin TX with a TCD-D8 and AT822 mic but I was recently granted
permission
by the band to video tape it. I have a Sony HandyCam and I was
just
wondering if I could hook the AT822 mic up to the video camera
mic-in and
get a good sounding video. Is that all I would have to do or would
I need
some other tools?
Please e-mail me back if you can help me out.
Thanks
======================================================================
"It's all fun and games till someone loses an eye. Then,
its just fun. "
======================================================================
>>
Unfortunately,
most every camcorder has Audio ALC and NO Manual knob.
This is going to make all music recorded with a camcorder compressed
and when coupled with a good external microphone, exhibit disturbing
'bass-beat pumping' artifacts.
Use the D8 (using the manual setting!) as the audio recording
deck and later sync up the audio with listening to both the camcorder
audio and the DAT audio until the 'echo' disappears... (alternately
use the pause buttons to get sync) .......... both sources will
then be in sync ......... hit the record button on the VCR master
copy deck to record both video AND excellent DAT quality audio
unto a master tape of the performance. Use this copy
to do the editing to the final master edit copy; analog video
generation quality loss is a factor with this so use the best
copy deck available.
If you're running continuously with both systems when making the
recording of the group, then the editing should be less painful.
This method also allows the DAT with microphone to be 'in a better
place for the audio' and the Video can be then be recorded 'anywhere'
where the views are best. This is a tremendous advantage
for a quality production of the group.
It's been reported that the sync should stay good for at least
30 minutes once its established. Anyone know about this
from experience???
Best 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: 1-877-347-6642
===========================================================
<<
Subj: Re: : new taper
Date: 98-03-01 21:51:12 EST
From: DMil
To: GuySonic
thank you so much for all the great help.!!!!
can you explain to me WHY I need to use 20db and not 0??? I think
if I understand why (layman's terms) I will remember. I
taped Steve Earle last night, kept levels between -6 and -12,
the accoustics were good, and the show turned out great!
I have hope.
diane
>>
On
all Sony decks, the atten switch is actually a mic preamplifier
high gain-Low gain switch. Your NORMAL position will
be the Low gain or 20 db position which allows 10 times more signal
level from the microphone before distortion, much lower high frequency
bandwidth distortion, less noise from the mic preamplifierl.
Diane, Do check my web site for these and other tapers tips.
Best 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: 1-877-347-6642
================================
Subject:
Binaural Filters?
Reply-To: ian
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 18:36:32 -0700
Hi, I'm new to the list and rather naieve about binaural mics.
They all
seem to offer a filter to reduce the extra bass. What is
this filter? Is
it just some form of EQ? If it is just an EQ of sorts, could
I not load the
recording into my computer, and process it better and precisely
to my needs
using a tool like Sound Forge, etc? Or am I misunderstanding
what this
filter does? Is it simply a post-process modification or
does it somehow
change the way the mics antennuate? If I have the ability
to post process
and EQ the recording, would there be any point to getting the
filter, other
than convenience?
Thanks, Ian
============================================================================
>>
Hello
Ian,
Nothing to do with Binaural only the use of mics with almost ruler
flat response to 5 cycles!!!!. For grunge shows, bass must
be rolled off BEFORE PLAYBACK ON REAL SPEAKERS but can be done
anytime during or post.
Real time Bass reduction has the advantage of giving the recording
deck more analog circuit headroom that can make a difference if
running a bit hot anyway.
My web site has a discussion about using the bass reduction system
during a recording and has other taper's tips, a discussion about
binaural/DSM differnences, and informative reviews.
Best 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: 1-877-347-6642
=========================================
<<
Subj: bass rolloff ?
Date: 98-03-10 18:21:39 EST
From: Ce
To: GuySonic
i got a question about the bass roll-off.a friend of mine is useing
my sonics to record a violin in a church,which setting should
he use on the bass roll-off?
any help greatly appreciated
carl >>
Hello Carl,
Normally, no bass reduction would be used.
However, this adapter also powers the mic so he would need to
use the minimum setting of 30 cycles to get maximum warmth (although
Low frequency content of other instruments would be effected if
present), 30 cycles is the best available from this adapter.
If your friend is recording using the Sony SBM-1 processor, then
don't use the PA adapter but plug the mic directly in for using
the very adequate Plug-in-Power feature on this unit. This
would give better warmth to instumental pure acoustic recordings.
If he is using the D7/8, then the powering is much less adequate
as the SBM-1 but may be also used directly for good results.
The D100 direct powering is totally inadequate without the very
necessary MOD-2 upgrade or using the powering adapter.
The bass rolloff benefit (in this situation) would be to reduct
trafic motor rumble that is often heard inside city located buildings.
Just recording a solo violin would be a situatiion where bass
reduction should have very minor (if any) effect on the overal
instrumental warmth of the recording. Where motor rumble
is very noticable inside, using the 65 cycle position would improve
the recording of just violin by reducing interfering noises.
Best 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: 1-877-347-6642
=====================================
<<
Subj: Re: Stealthing with Neumann KM184?
Date: 98-03-18 19:43:48 EST
From: thomas
To: GuySonic@aol.com (GuySonic)
Len,
As luck would have it, I've been using your DSM6 (or 6S, I'm not
sure --
they're on loan from a friend) mics with my D100 (no MOD-2) for
the last
few months and I absolutely love them when I'm upfront and the
crowd is
quiet. The problem is I tend to tape at a small bar-style
venue (the
Station Inn in Nashville) where the crowd can be *very* rowdy
and tends to
talk throughout the entire show. I've tried taping in various
areas in the
room, but I've been unable to find a spot where crowd noise isn't
a problem
(even right on top of the PA).
My only complaint about the DSMs is that I've had to use the 0dB
attenuation setting on my D100 because the music is not-very-loud
acoustic
bluegrass. I know you offer more sensitive mics for those
situations, but
my primary problem is the excessive crowd noise I get from using
omnis in
that venue.
So... that's why I'm leaning toward getting some more directional
mics.
Tom
>>
Hello Tom,
I'm happy to hear you've got a set to try out, but the powering
situation is very poor with the stock D100.
The D100 should be upgraded to provide the optimum power for the
DSM as the gain is much less, less clarity, and mic noise is greater
with the stock D100 mic power system.
You should actually be using the 20 db setting if at all possible
(even if the level knob needs to go to full up) as this is technically
a better preamplifier front end with adequate headroom.
All PA'd sound recording should be done in this setting for audibly
better results if you can manage it.
You would get much more enjoyable tapes if using a non-directional
mic (like the DSM headworn in some fashion as suggested) for shows
where the audience and performance are more conducive.
Getting a directional pair may help in this one place and for
the reason you described but will give much lower quality recordings
in general specially for better venue situations. I have
found that bar crowds are using live music more as wallpaper than
as a main interest; this seems to be also happening more at concerts
I've lately attended. Headwearing the DSM mics helps give
a directional aspect to this interference that is more easily
ignored like at the live venue, but trying to remove it with directional
mics will also take a major portion of the ambient stereo sound
quality away, increases distortion, and loss of that nice
bass warmth full sound typical of the DSM.
Perhaps recordings in this one place is not a good reason to get
poorer results in general as is expected with directional mics
of modest cost used for stealth setups.
You must decide what's most important and most vendors will give
you 30 days to get a refund in order to try out a set completely;
ours is 60 days.
Please visit my web site (listed below) for a lot of info on mics
(with mag reviews), taping, and tips.
Best 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: 1-877-347-6642
=============================================================
<<
Subj: Re: mics
Date: 98-03-20 04:54:43 EST
From: TeRRy
To: GuySonic@aol.com (GuySonic)
> I have just gotten a Sony TCD D100
> I am interested in recording some hard rock concerts.
> Could you tell me what you would recommend for this?
> I plan to record both inside & outdoors.
> Also, could you give me a cost on those items?
> Thanx
> TeRRy
> >>
>Hello
TeRRy,
>If you could check my web site first to get a feel from the
info and reviews,
>this would help in answering the other questions that are
important to you.
>
>The DSM-6S/L or EL (lower gain models) with or without the
PA-6LC or PA-6LC3
>powering adapter for powering and excessive bass control may
be the best
>approach to hard loud bassy type music recording. Otherwise,
the D100 can be
>upgraded to power the mics fully if bass reduction is not
necessary and would
>make for a simpler system.
>
>Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
>Leonard Lombardo
I did go to your web site already and spent about 3 hours checking
it and
the links out. Although it is very informative, I am afraid that
I just do
not have the technical knowledge to know enough to make an informed
choice.
I was hoping that you might be able to figure out a system for
me to use
with the TCD D 100 that would be the best to capture rock music
performances. I do not mind spending a little extra to get a better
sound,
up from the basics. I did not get the super bit map adaptor from
Sony, as I
have no idea if it would be worth it. What do you think would
be the best
way for me to go? If it would help, I could give you a call to
talk it
over. I want to get a good system in time for the summer shows.
COMMENT: The recording performance of the new D100 DAT is
almost identical to any improvement gained with using the SBM-1
with the older D7/8 Sony decks. You've already got an optimal
system with just the D100!
Rock music is pretty varied in loudness and sound quality depending
on what groups are your interest and location of the venue.
Groups like Phish, Zero, and most of the Grateful Dead concerts
I've attended seem to be of moderate loud volume but also have
high quality sound balance (not excessive in the bass).
Other music groups of Blues/Rock/Raggae style (specially in small
clubs) can get very loud where earplugs often are desired and
bass is purposely excessive and/or the hall is boomy to produce
major bass loudness peaks; this is where the bass reducing
PA-6LC(3) adapters are an advantage to get an even sounding recording
that's playable on normal stereo equipment at more reasonable
loudness.
Also
- in the last few shows I have tried to record with my ECM-959A
mic, I
get about 20 minutes of the show, and then it just stops and becomes
a low
volume clicking with NO music at all. I was not using the 20db
setting and
was on #6 usually around front row center. Any idea what is happening
here?
Talk to you later
TeRRy
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
The lover of life's not a sinner
The ending is just a beginning
The closer you get to the meaning
The sooner you know that you're dreaming
*** Ronnie James Dio ***
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
>>
Hello TeRRy,
The problem with getting no sound seems either like a poor connection
(pehaps the mic plug slipped out a bit) or the battery in the
mic went down? DAT decks are usually not intermittant and
either work or don't work. The mics and connectors are another
story.
While your Level Knob Setting of #6 indicates a safe input signal
(atten switch) condition, but being also at 0 db when using the
959A seems to indicate either the mic's output is abnormally low
(very weak battery) and/or you also had the deck's ALC setting
switched on (which defeats the manual Level Knob control entirely).
You should use only the manual (switch) setting and mostly always
be in the 20 db position for moderate to loud source recording
with most small & battery operated microphones. Check
to see where you have these switch settings on the deck's back.
For a DSM
microphone system, it seems that the DSM-6S/L (low gain) set $(450)
should be a good fit. Having the D100 mic powering upgrade
($85) would allow a simple, reliable system, and full bass frequency
performance for doing most venues with excellent to slightly below
average quality sound.
If (with the above system) you're finding that some or a majority
of your recordings are too bass heavy (this depends on the group's
music style and venue locations you frequent), then the PA-6LC
($125) mic powering and bass reducing adapter can be plugged in-series
with the mic and used only for those occasions where bass is excessive
and/or the room is boomy.
If you already know that very loud bassy/boomy sources are where
you're mostly going to find yourself recording, then forget the
internal mic upgrade on the deck and just go for either the PA-6LC
(fixed 65 cycle setting) or the more versatile PA-6LC3 ($200)
with its 3 switched 30/65/100 cycle bass control settings.
The PA-6LC3's 30 cycle position allows fuller bass recording (although
it's still being reduced) for when venue sound quality is better.
Perhaps a call is warranted if more issues need to be discussed?
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo
===========================================
<<
Subj: quick question...
Date: 98-03-21 14:23:55 EST
From: wmaangel net
To: GuySonic@aol.com
Hi, I am considering buying a pair of your DSM6 mics, but wanted
to ask
you a quick question, because I may not be understanding something...
I am thinking about getting a D100...OK, if I get the PA6 to power
the
mics, can I then go "line in" on the deck?
Your answer is appreciated, I have figured out that if you get
the
"mod2", then you have to go mic in for "plug in power" but I just
wanted
to be sure about the line in ability with the battery box..
Thanks!
Matt C.
>>
Hello
Matt,
DSM microphones have much lower output by desugn than most the
tiny other mics and will only work with mic inputs; makes it easier
to know where to plug in and setup over other mics that use both
line & mic inputs.
You will not be overloading your deck's preamplifier (with the
DSM) and will be using the D100 in the 20 db attenuated positon
for most everything with excellent results.
Having the internal mic powering upgrade or using the external
power system is a decision that's more easily made knowing what
styles of music are your main interest. Bass controlling
powering adapters (PA-6LC & PA-6LC3) are necessary for best
results for recording very loud, excessively bassy and/or very
boomy bass. If the majority of recordings are of this type
venue, then the external adapter with bass control is better for
your requirements. Otherwise, the internal MOD-2 Deck upgrade
for Phish, Zero, ABB, and Grateful Dead type loudness levels and
sound quality is a better choice for most tapers.
It seems that you've already seen the Web Site listed below for
detailed info?
Best 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: 1-877-347-6642
====================================
Subj:
Re: DSM-6/EL mics
In
a message dated 98-04-16 16:49:17 EDT, you write:
<< Subj: RE: DSM-6/EL mics
Date: 98-04-16 16:49:17 EDT
From: larz
To: GuySonic@aol.com ('GuySonic')
Another thing I forgot to ask you was regarding the audience noise
etc,
obviously in live rock concerts, the crowds around you can get
quite noisy,
and as such, cardioids could be better at eliminating all that
unwanted
noise. Do you have anything in the way of cardioids or do you
feel that your
binaural mics do a pretty good job of that themselves?
Adios,
LarZ
>>
Hello LarZ,
Yes it would be nice to mute out that motor mouth or Yahooo near
you when it happens. However, the mics that suppress side
sounds also suppress a lot of what makes for really good full
sound steeo recording. Your best tact is to get some distance
from some people or get closer where the sound is greater than
the closest 'party' noises.
Cardioid mics do suppress some of this but you'll be much less
happy with most all your recordings using this type of mic exclusively
..... its mostly a special case microphone. However, if
your music tastes ALWAYS places you within a riot/party zone of
which you cannot tolerate as part of the natural ambient 'scene',
then maybe the lower quality recording with side cancellation
is a better choice for you at this time. When recording
other venues where the crowd is really into the music more that
the party, then the DSM will be much more versatile and most satisfying
over any Cardioid set. There are some rather costly ($1200
a set and up.... and larger size) cardioids that actually sound
very good for being directional. I hope you don't
really need directional mics......... you'd be a lot happier with
this hobby for getting really exciting results with using omni
headworn mics.
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo
----------------------------------------
<<
Subj: Love for music!
Date: 98-05-03 10:25:48 EDT
From: Anders J
To: GuySonic@aol.com (Leonard Lombardo)
Hi Leonard!
As you might remember I bought a pair of DSM-6S from you half
a year
ago. Just to make a long and very nice story short: Music is very
important for me and these mics with the D100 have brought me
closer to
music than any other HiFi gear have done for me!!!!! I am right
now
listening to a solo piano concert i taped in a church here in
Stockholm
this weekend - fantastic - the dynamic of the grand piano and
the sound
of the church room is all there!!
Well I could write much more to the praise of your products but
let's go
to my questions:
- When I record acoustic music (like this piano concert)
I set the
level at 10 on the D100 (pad -20dB) but still don't get more than
-20dB
level on average. I don't want to take the mic pad away - this
only adds
noise and I am afraid of mic preamp distortion (right??). Would
it be a
good idea to get a new pair of mics with higher sensitivity? Though
I
have been taping very loud music, I have never used the line in
- the
mic input on the D100 has been insensitive enough.
The sound quality of these low levels recordings are very good
and the
noise is no problem - but still a somewhat higher level shouldn't
hurt -
what do you think????
- Quite often I don't find the "mics on the glasses" to
be the best way
to wear the mics. Instead I have cut small holes on the sides
of a cap,
just in front of my ears. The cap is black and from some distance
you
don't see the mics. Next option is to take off the cap and place
the cap
on my knee. I sit on a chair and cross my legs and place the cap
on the
knee pointing towards the sound. This works very well for me.
But - do
you have any other ideas regarding mic placement??
BTW - thanks for you very nice web site!!!
hope you have some time to answer my questions!
thanks again!!
Anders
--
It's the latest gigg I ever played in my whole life
- but what the heck - here we go! 1994 M.S.
>>
Hello
Anders,
Thank you for sharing your appreciation of the DSM recording system.
You are safe to use the 0 db position.......... your level knob
will probably set around 5 and if at #4 or above indicates a safe
input condition against overload.
Your cap on the knee seems a workable situation........ stereo
image is less ideal though.... cap placed on the head is more
ideal.
A DSM-6x/H or EH would be better suited for pure acoustic.........
DSM-1/M is ideal for just acoustic/nature where SPLs are less
than 110 db spl......... no heard mic or deck noise but quite
limited to doing just this type of recording.
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo
----------------------------
Subject: M1 question--bass distortion
Reply-To: h.net
Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 13:52:23 -0500
I used my new M1 in a stealth situation for the 1st time.
I recorded Ziggy Marley with Sonic Studios and I've got distortion
on
the low end. The levels peak around 3db, the highs and upper mids
sound
great but the bass is way overloaded.
Is there anyway to repair this?
The mic attenuater was set on 0db, I didn't think the music was
that
loud.
Anybody who can help and wants a copy of teh tape will get it
free of
charge! It was the best ZMMM show I've ever experienced.
Jai
------------------------------
>>
This
is an unfortunate and non-recoverable error (distorted content
can be reduced with bass rolloff but not eliminated) in deck setting..........
using the deck in the -20 db attenuation setting avoids this type
of mic preamplifier overload .......... the mic is not overloading,
..... it's the deck's mic preamplifer causing the recorded distortion.
VU levels will not show this condition............ the LEVEL
KNOB does give an indication of likely overload when positioned
below the #4 mark....... #4 to full up #10 (for desired VU indication
of about -6 db VU) indicates that the deck's mic preamplifier
is being operated in a safe-from-overloading setting.
This and more tapers tips are located on my web site listed below.
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo
-------------------------------------
<<
Subj: Mics: good news and bad news
Date: 98-05-05 18:21:32 EDT
From: Gary
To: GuySonic@aol.com (GuySonic)
I did the DV video shoot with the DSM mics and the attenuator
you
suggested, and it came out well. The attenuator definately
did the
trick.
I did have a little trouble with the 1/8" mini-plug I used:
when you wiggle it, it makes noise. I noticed that the plug
you use
on the mics is noise free. My plug was essentially designed
for
headphones, do you know if there's a slight difference in the
spec,
or a difference in the quality, or are some brands of miniplugs
just
better than others for low-voltage signals?
I do have one problem I hope you can help me with. A crowd
surfer
kicked me during the show and now one of the mics is making a
slight
high-frequency buzzing noise. Wiggling the cable at the
mic end can
make the buzz softer. Have you ever heard of a problem like
this?
Do you think you can repair it?
I'm sure you usually charge for this sort of work, but I am basically
unemployed and a bit destitute. I would, however, like to
write up a
report of how I used DSM mics to solve the problem of distortion
with Sony DV cameras. If I post this report to at
least
two mailing lists (Dat-Heads and Digital Video List), with a
published article possibly in the future, could you look at
the mics for me no-charge?
Also, could you please tell me the model number for DSM mics with
an
inline power supply and low output, and also, do you sell an
attenuator so people can purchase an "off the shelf" solution?
thank you!
--Gary
>>
Hello
Gary,
Follow the maintenance tips on my web site ..... "mini-connectors
ins' and outs" to clean the plug and jack to eliminate noises
from dirty or corroded metal mic connectors.
Hum can be from a poor connector grounding connection or
a soft failure of one of the capule's grounding connections.........
locate the pickup channel with the hum and give the capsule a
mild squeeze with thumb and forefinger (listen on headphones)
until the hum disappears with the 'resetting' of the capsule grounding
connection. This fix will work for only a short time
(day, week, months) but will reappear again ......... fix with
a slight squeeze before using. There is no permanent repair
for this other than replacing that mic channel completely with
another microphone assembly...........cost is $150 and is possible
only when an accurate match is found for the good remaining channel
pickup. Mic can be traded up for a newer unit at 30% off
new mic price.
In-Line -15 db attenuators are available for $60 and come with
a choice of mic connectors (mini, 1/4", and XLR).......... usable
only after the powering scheme of the mic used........ not between
the mic and the mic power.
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo
----------------------------------------
Subj: Re:
battery drain
Date:
05/06/98
To: .com
Hello Tim,
You've
a few questions posed so I'll reply within your sent text.
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo
----------------------------------------
TEL: 541-459-8839 /\ FAX: 541-459-8842 /\ USA Free: 1-877-347-6642
<<<<<<<<<
In a message dated 98-05-06 13:47:14 EDT, you write:
<<
Subj: battery drain
Date: 98-05-06 13:47:14 EDT
From: tjp@.com (Tim P)
To: GuySonic@aol.com
leonard,
i borrowed a set of dsm-6 mics over the w/e to record
harry connick jr.
my friend sent them w/ a battery in the pack. i assumed
they would not be
draining juice of the battery since they were not plugged into
a recorder.
i did a short sound test w/ the supplied battery
on music from my
computer speakers. the levels wer were low, so i assumed
it was due to the
low volume. i get to the show i get the tape rolling and still
low levels
(i am almost puking). i write the incident off and hope
to do better the
next night.
the next day i put a new battery in and test the
same as i did before.
WHAM. great levels! i almost hurl, since it was the
battery that was
almost dead and i got no sound :(
did the mic wear down the battery during shipping
and waiting several
days for the show? or is it more likely that the battery
was already dead
upon arrival?
REPLY:
The battery will last a continuous 2 months if left in the holder
or with the mic pluged in to the Powering adapter........... most
just unplug the DSM-6 microphone from the PA-6 powering unit..........
your friend sent you a very used battery or one that was left
connected for over 2 months. The much older DSM-6P sets
had the battery powering unit hardwired to the microphone....
a one piece system .... removal of the battery was the only way
to stop power consumption.
btw the recording w/ the fresh battery was great.
just want to kick
myself in the ass for not checking another battery.
questions about the purchase of a set of your mics.
1) for the dsm-6
you use the panasonic capusal, right? why is the dsm-9 $1800?
it uses a b
& k, right? can the b & k capusal be that much better?
i ask this
because, from your webpage, it shows that the dsm-6 has a slightly
greater
range than the dsm-9. 2) what about the 'signature'
series? what does
that add besides $100?
REPLY: The DSM-9 capsules are very costly to purchase and much
more difficult to get a decent match....... they also require
extensive mechanical/acoustic modification to remove the coloration
prevalent in the stock microphone.......... they are worth the
money but, not really that much better than a DSM-6x/x model fitted
to your sound/music recording requirements. Actually, the
DSM-9M has more ability to handle medium to extremely loud sound
recording......... the DSM-6x/-has 5 ranges of sensitivity sub
models to handle full recording dynamic spectrum where the DSM-9
can cover the necessary low noise operation AND SPL loudness max.
range of 3 models (M, L. EL) with quality performance.
i had graet success w/ the dsm-6, but am nervous when wearing
the larger
mic compared to the dsm-9 or as the core sounds appear smaller
w/ the pix
on their web page w/ the mic compared to a dime. i mention
this, because i
am in a wheelchair and ushers are always hanging around where
i sit or they
escort me to my seat at events or asking if i need any assistance.
my uncle came up to me at the show and and in 3 seconds
noticed i had the
mics on (he had no idea i was going to be there, let alone taping).
this
w/ lights on and a few minutes before the show starts. i
normally wear
glasses, so i already had the mics on and ready to go.
honestly, it would take me a long time to save for
the dsm-9 mics. so i
am not sure how much of a potential cutsomer i am for the dsm-9
mics.
sincerely,
tim parrish
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Tim P/
"When I make a promise, you can bet that it's true
So put your chips down, baby and empty your pockets, too."
-- Don't take your love away
-- Neil Young
>>
Hello
again Tim,
Moderate length hair (just covers the ears and sideburns will
hide the microphones on eyeglasses..... pickups secured (with
the metal slider) at about the sideburn area. Other placements
are within the sweat band section of a backwards worn black or
very dark colored baseball cap (hides the cord exiting down the
back) through a few specially made 'button holes' large enough
to let the pickups protrude without mechanical interference or
rubbing........... the loops and cord can be duct taped or sewn
secured. Headwearing the mics does work the best for stereo
sound quality but some users have place button holes within the
colar of a shirt or vest position the mics close as possible to
the neck......... this is a difficult area to keep mics from getting
rubbed or bumped......... much greater care must be taken to avoid
this when mounting mic within clothing.
The DSM-9M mics are not $1000 better ............ don't feel shorted
by not affording them......... much satisfaction with a DSM-6x/x
is most certain.
The S designation is a best channel matched set and can be audibly
better depending on what you've learned to listen to and the quality
of the source.
Cleaner bass and more accurate ambient imaging are some of the
advantages of going the $100 more for this premium matched grade.
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo
----------------------------------------
Sonic Studios(tm)..."Making Audio History With DSM(tm) Microphones"
====================================
<<
Subj: A question?
Date: 98-05-07 23:56:22 EDT
From:
To: GuySonic
Hi,
Tried out the new mic's and am very happy with the sound.
One question however: Would you recomend any alternative ways
or places to mount the mic's(other than glasses), with the purpose
of being more secretive(concealing them more). Such as on a hat,
etc.
And how would it affect the sound.
Thanks for your time,
Joe
>>
Hello Joe,
Here is a reply to a similar question:
REPLY: While the DSM mics are a bit larger (due to an advanced
acoustic/mechanical system found in no other mic system), many
users more concerned with visibility than stereo image quality
have opt'd for other lower profile mounting methods. Reversed
baseball caps are popular as the 'bill' hids the backside cord
exit and the cap is useful to many of at least my age group with
a lot less hair or with balding spots. A specially made
'oversized button hole' place in the 'sweat band portion' of the
cap .... somewhere forward of the ears & allowing just the
mic portion to protrude out and the mounting loop/cord secured
with duct tape or sewn to run inside the sweat band to the cap
rear (or the bill area if reversed).
Another method is to use the button hole method on a selected
shirt or 'recording vest' that completely hides the wire with
another access single large 'button hole' (large enough
to thread both the mics/cords through) under the rear section
of the collar so the cords are invisible as they run down the
inside backside of the garment to exit at the trousers belt area
for deck input access.
When pickups are either hat or collar mounted near or to still
have some major body mass (head or neck) is directly adjacent
and between the mics, the stereo image is still quite good.
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo
----------------------------------------
<<
Subj: Sensitivity vs. noise floor
Date: 98-05-08 10:31:43 EDT
From: )
To: GuySonic@aol.com (GuySonic)
Does the noise floor vary with the raising of the sensitivity
of the DSM
mics?
If so, how much between the DSM6s/m & the DSM6s/h?
Thanks!!!
Sorry for not asking all my questions at the same time. I'm still
very new
in this outdoors recording field...
God Bless!!!
David
>>
Hello
David,
There are two mechanisms that are at work with going to a more
sensitive mic........ 1st, the higher output of the more sensitive
rated mic does help in better S/N performance of the mic itself........
by 1-2 db (DSM-6x/M-H), ....... 2'd, higher mic output
also gives more S/N performance from the deck's mic preamplifier
by supplying more signal in relationship to the deck's mic preamp
stage self-noise. The quietest DSM set is the DSM-1x/H,M,L
models that give 5-10 db quieter performance but have limited
loudness handling............ not really suitable for amplified
or moderately loud sounds.
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo
-------------------------------------
Subj:
Re: order info.......why DSM-6S/M may be a better choice
Date:
05/12/98
To: endo
In a message dated 98-05-11 03:55:18 EDT, you write:
>What kinds of non amplified sounds would you be recording.......
piano, Jazz
>music, Classical, Vocals,....... ?? Would the
Rock music sounds be not so
>loud as to make the ears ring very much afterward? I
try to suit the mic
>closely to your tastes so that the very best results are easier
for you.
Thanks of your kindly advice.
My target recording sorce are....
a) Rock music without "ears ring" (Not so laud).
b) Non amplified sounds.. accodion, guitar, vocal ensamble,
in a very small room (usually until 40 peaple).
I want use AGC in D-100, My frends DSM6s/L is good without mic.
att.
if the att. set -20db pritty low revel.
Then if I select DSM6s/M and without mic att. in D-100,
analog circit clipping probrem appear or not.....
I afreid this probrem.
Do you think ?
Yasuhiro
, university of Tokyo
>>
Thank you for relating more details on your recording interests.
I'm thinking that if you're main interest was just the acoustic
music
, then......... the DSM-6S/H or EH (high sensitivity or
even Extra High) would be much better suited for just this..........
it would allow you a chance of using the D100 with the -20 db
attenuator ...... better performance and overload protection
is found in this position if enough signal comes from the microphones.......
the sensitivity of H and EH is 5db to 7 db more than the model
you borrowed from your friend who records just Rock Music.
However, the need to record amplified music and louder Rock
must temper this suggestion to also include this ability ..........
this is why the DSM-6S/M with 3-4 db more sensitivity/output signal
may work best for both.
The 3-4 db higher output of the Medium gain microphone could allow
you to sometime use the -20 db attenuator with acoustical but
not as often as with the High or Extra High sensitivity model.
Overload of the mic preamplifier is also more likely with
the Medium Sensitivity mic selection (as you've anticipated) when
the deck is set to 0 db...... as you are now doing with the borrowed
set........ when the acoustic music is loud or when positioned
very close.
A way to avoid overloading the deck with signal from any microphone
is to notice where the Level Knob is set for getting -12 db VU
to -6 db VU........ if the Level Knob is at #4 or higher.......
to even #10 (full up level), this indicates there is little chance
of overloading the mic input.... when the knob is positioned below
#4 for the same VU readings, then then indicates there is a chance
of overload and using the -20 db attenuation and turning the Level
Knob towards full up is suggested.
Let me know how this appears to you.
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo
----------------------------------------
<<
Subj: First use of DSM-6s
Date: 98-07-06 18:49:46 EDT
From: Aaron
J Reply-to: Aaron J
To: guysonic@aol.com (guysonic@aol.com)
Leonard,
I received my TCD-D100 and the DSMs plenty of time before the
Joe
Satriani concert July 4th (10-11:30pm). Thanks again.
I learned a lot
recording that outdoor concert, like show up hours before the
start and
include a Mini-Mag flashlight with your kit.
Unfortunately, I arrived about 50 minutes before the start and
was only
able to position myself about 10 rows back directly facing the
right
side PA stack (and only after talking some people into letting
me stand
next to them). It was completely packed.
For the most part, the recording is truly spectacular. There
are
points where you would swear I was patched into the board.
We were
blessed with an excellent FOH mix except in some instances where
sequenced material was played back. One of my friends says
my
recording of Summer Song is better than the one on Disc2 (live)
of the
Satriani's Time Machine 2CD set.
I do have a couple of questions based upon this experience, though.
First, I'm wondering how the mic limiter (not ACG, just limiter+manual)
responds with the DSMs. I noticed (after listening to recording)
that
I fooled with the level too often because I didn't want to use
the
limiter. It wasn't entirely my fault because some of those
sequenced
tracks really cut through too loudly. From what I heard
playing the
tape back through my Carver AL-IIIs, the ideal overall level seems
to
reside at -4dB with peaks consistently going to 0 to get that
polished
CD sound. Will the mic limiter allow me to safely raise
the level
average from -12 (recommended in Sony manual) to closer to -4?
REPLY: The limiter seems to go into action (just like an
automatic level knob) at about -3 db to limit levels from going
much over -2 db......... this action can be a bit too audible
(in the form of dynamic compression or 'down pumping') especially
if you've manually advanced your level knob for over -6 db average
levels with the limiter acting on the peaks frequently or even
constantly.
Because of the great variations during most live performances,
it's best not to try to push average levels much greater than
-12 db VU............ allowing the peaks to approach about -6
db VU will give you more warning when the program starts exceeding
previous averages............ going for that 'polished' CD level
is too difficult to achieve unless having much prior knowledge
of a certain venue's range of loudness........... best to be conservative
and get a much smoother sounding tape without overloads or frequent
need for manual level adjustments.
Secondly,
in certain places in the recording, you hear these funky
phasing anomalies where the image bounces from left to right and
vice
versa. The phenomenon kinda sounds cool through headphones,
but it's
annoying when you hear it through loudspeakers. (I positioned
the mics
very close to the hinges of my glasses, not back near ears.)
Was this
caused from phase cancellations because I was standing in front
of the
right side PA instead of being centered between the two stacks?
Maybe
the wind, or me moving my head? Interestingly, I don't recall
hearing
them when I was taping.
REPLY:
While wind currents can shift the balance (a little bit) and especially
the loudness when at a moderate to far distance from the stacks,
most shifts in balance are from left/right head movements.............
consider you've also attached a video camera to your head........
with your head direction controlling the pointing of the camera
view........... the stereo is similar in effect with turning your
head.......... knowing this will help you make unconscious hard
left/right head turns. Looking up and down will not effect
the stereo ....... but, can cause the high frequency sounds to
vary if sounds are being blocked by those directly in front of
your view of the stacks.
Lastly,
I had terrible luck with battery life. Thankfully, I have
4
pairs of NH-D100s, but I didn't even get 1.5 hours from the first
pair
and they were fully charged! I turned the backlight on and
off a
number of times to check levels, but that shouldn't have cut my
bat
life in half. Any ideas? (Did not monitor with headphones
- too loud
anyway.)
REPLY:
I've heard similar reports of short battery life with those NiMHbatteries................
the light is not a problem with recording time....... the NiMH
battieries can be quickly damaged if inserted too soon for charging
again (before being mostly run down) or for a second time on the
charger by accident. I've only used one set of these...........
when new and before charging, I placed in the deck and ran down........
took just 20 minutes........... then placed on the charger for
5 hours........ about 2-3 hours longer than when the green light
showed (this will not hurt the battery ..... as long as the red
light doesn't show a second time).
It doesn't matter if these batteries are stored charged or discharged..........
no memory effect........ just sensitive to overcharging.......
and they run down a bit faster when not being used than the NiCad
types.
This original battery gave me more than 3.5 hours recording time........
it shows it's possible ........... but not as reliable as using
an external BC-1 battery pack or the L91 Eveready lithium
cells available from Radio Shack for two @ $6.99........... these
cannot be recharged but will last for at least 5 hours ..... then
quit without much warning.
Any suggestions to further improve my techniques is greatly
appreciated.
Thanks again,
ajc
Aaron J.
>>
Subj:
Re: First use of DSM-6s
Date:
07/07/98
To: ajc@execpc.com
Hello Aaron,
It sounds like you did better than just OK with your very 1st
time using the new system. I'll attempt to answer your questions
within the copy of your message.
Thank you again for deciding on using DSM mics............ you
should be a very satisfied recordist with just a little more experience.
Best 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: 1-877-347-6642
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
===========================================
<<
Subj: Re: question
Date: 98-07-06 17:32:56 EDT
From: TheKind
To: GuySonic
Thanx for replying. Right now I have a Sony MZR30 Portable minidisc
recorder. But I plan on getting a Sony D8 by the end of the summer.
Most shows that I tape are heavy metal type bands that play in
smaller clubs and theaters and some arena shows, but mostly smaller
clubs and theaters. I've noticed a lot of people talking about
Mod1 and Mod2 for Sony DAT recorders. What exactly is this? Would
i need this if i got your mics. Plus do your mics come with a
bass reduction filter, or is it not necessary with your mics.
Right now i am taping with Sound Professionals Binaural Mics witha
bass reduction filter.
let me know
brad
>>
Hello
Brad,
You can plug the DSM-6S/L or DSM-6S/EL (Pro Low Gain or Extra
Low Gain) mics directly into your MD and power it with the mic
powering feature standard on your deck............ the MOD-2 is
an increase in the power available stock..... gives best performance
from the DSM mics ...... but, is not absolutely necessary with
the MZ-R30 which has fairly good power available........ However,
the need for bass reduction control for good listenability of
Heavy Metal recorded live Rock is often desirable.
For optimum powering the mics AND bass control, there are several
choices of PA-x adapters that work in-series with the mic.
These are shown (only until I get the PA page completed) listed
on the web site home page. The PA-6LC2 is a versatile model
that allows 65 cycle bass reduction (the most usable frequency
of control) and can be turned completely off for full bass recording
when conditions allow.
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo
----------------------------------------
<<
Subj: Your Mics.....!!!
Date: 98-07-12 08:20:09 EDT
From: TeRRy
To: GuySonic@aol.com
>Yes it did come and the mics, adapter, and cleaning kit are
in the mail
>Saturday to you........ let me know how it's working after
a few experiences.
>
>Sure will..........Thanx a LOT!!!
>TeRRy
Just thought that I would drop you a line to tell you how HaPPy
I am with
the Mics that I got from you. I was a bit concerned about spending
so much
on a set of mics, but I am EXTREMELY HaPPy with the results that
I have
been getting with them. Basically, I can just say that when I
play back a
tape, it is like I am right there at the show again.
Also your sheet of recording tips has helped me tremendously.
There is one problem that I have run into......
At a recent Metallica show, I was about 30 rows back and although
there was
decent sound, the recording had a kinna echo reverb sound to it.
This was
at an outdoor venue. Also, I had the misfortune of being near
some little
bitch that saw me start the recording, and from then on, she started
to
scream at the top of her lungs, almost every 30 seconds. Her damned
screams
come thru better than the show did. I was recording at #6 with
the -20db
on. I could have turned it up a bit, but noticed too late to change
the
settings. Usually I am MUCH closer and have EXCELLENT results.
But for
those times that I am unable to get those closer seats, is there
anything I
can do to get a better recording with way less audience in it???
Aside from that, show, I could not have gotten a better recording
unless I
was plugged into the sound board. Those mics are GREAT. Thanx
a LOT!!!
TeRRy
>>
Hello Terry,
Thank you for the update on how it's going with the new system.
Your response to the enjoyment of recording a good show and later
listening to your experience is one I wish to be more common...............
until then...... please spread the good word about your new hobby
to appreciative friends.
As far as the audience noise, it's always best to try to not let
those around you know you're recording.............. I've had
similar problems with some of those close by getting even more
obnoxious than normal when they know they're going to either be
on a recording....... or......... feel ambivalent about your personal
taping of a show that they feel personally not to have guts to
take the risk to attempt.......... mostly for fear of getting
caught doing a 'no-no' if anything .......... or .. it's their
reaction to seeing you doing a 'no-no' in their opinion..... supported
by the venue policy no less.
There's no technical cure to solve this kind of interference.............
only a personal decision to try to deal with the person and the
over reaction to your taping......... this is a personal area............
you can either move to another location, tolerate the situation,.........
or......... try to deal with whomever ......... on a personal
level that gets the desired result of them toning down the noise
to tolerable levels.
If they don't know you're taping........... you can appeal to
them as not being able to enjoy this, 'your very favorite group',
very well with them carrying on in such a manner............ could
they be kind and thoughtful enough to try being more thoughtful
or whatever seems appropriate........ don't try the angry approach
if at all possible...... but, sometimes you must be persistant
enough to make it happen.
If they know your taping the show, try the same tact, but tell
them you'd be so grateful as to send them a copy........ which
you'd never do normally to anyone....etc........ if they would
please try to make it a tape of mostly the music without
all that constant screaming ...........or.......... whatever seems
appropriate to the situation.
Be as humanly kind, but also as compelling as possible............
push aside most of your annoyance, calm any anger ........
what those around you are doing that risk you tape is not personal.........
your in a situation that is part of learning experience in general
............ it's hard to tell the motivation of that obnoxious
acting individual next to you............... I've had this experience
numerous times......... and it's hard to tell the devices that
some people use to get 'your' attention and from those of seemingly
hostile or anti-social behaviour.
Good taping and hope we all may improve those 'personal/social
relationships' and as the need arises.
Best 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: 1-877-347-6642
-------=====================
<<
Subj: No Subject
Date: 98-07-26 13:51:38 EDT
From: Kevin
To: GuySonic
Hello -
I am very happy to have found your page through a friend who is
a very satisfied customer, Paul Hostetter of Bonny Doon, California.
I am writing to ask some advice. The projects that I need equipment
for are live CD recordings of acoustic duets - instruments include
fiddle,piano, guitar, flute, clarinet and irish bagpipes. I will
also do some vocal recording - storytelling. What rig would you
recommend? Looking forward to your reply
thanks,
Kevin Carr
>>
Hello Kevin,
I appreciate hearing that Paul is doing well and happy with the
results of his recording ............ I haven't heard from a friend
of Paul's for quite some time ...... Welles B. Goodrich .....
Welles is THE A cappella expert ..... maybe ask Paul about him
and let him know of my web site listed below.
The web site has listed many models of DSM mics, but your kind
descriptions of your recording intentions helps me greatly to
make a first suggestion
to appropriate models.
If you are needing a complete Recorder & mic sytem, the following
should be about perfect for you:
Sony PCM-M1 or TCD-D100 DAT deck ..... upgraded to correctly power
any DSM-1 or 6 model mic ....... $850.-
(Models are virtually identical.....but M1 is black cased and
the pro version, without SCMS copy system and without remote controller-display/earbud
phones included)
DSM-6S/EH microphones..... very precision matched ..... Extra
High Sensitivity ............ excellent for a wide range of acoustic
instrument and voice recording ...... Special Priced right now
at $450.- (reg. $550.-)
BC-1 .......
external D100 or M1 battey system ........ allows over 25 hours
operation on 4 alkaline C flashlight cells .......... makes the
deck much more practical to power reliably ......... with belt/shoulder
strap case for also carrying the deck ....... $80.-
If anticipating recording outdoors ........... where winds are
likely .......... the DSM-WHB windscreen headband ($125.-) might
also be considered a necessay accesory for this type of recording
.............. Using a generous sized open umbrella......(the
highly curved & deep 'dish' type) ........ to block 'predictable'
wind directions can also work with your head well placed inside
the wind quieted umbrella interior.
Ordering details are (on the Ordering page) on my site listed
below .......... as well as most details on the products discussed
...... (still need to get the DAT deck details shown).
More questions welcome anytime......... stock is available for
immediate delivery on the products discussed.
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo
=========================
<<
Subject: Piano and Voice, Disaster.
From:
"Alisdair " <.com>
Date: 31 Jul 1998 07:07:12 GMT
I have had to record a clasical piano and voice on only two tracks.
The
Piano in mono, well seperated from the voice on the other track.
I was
desperate to gt the grand piano in stereo, but my computer threw
a tantrum,
and I had no option but run with it. So any ideas what to do with
this
piano?
In sound forge I have created a stereo file, and from there I
can make a
pseudo stereo track. It gives the piano width so I can put the
voice in the
middle. But is there a better solution. I am prepared to hire,
buy,
whatever it takes.
All ideas gratefully received.
Alisdair ,
England
--
>>
Mic
the piano and the vocal with a two matched omni mics..........
the DSM mics are matched but are best when used within the scope
of the patented method of recording stereo. With this
method, the vocal is centered and in front of the piano .........
everything is acoustically mixed and will sound natural and very
wonderful....... mixing sounds as complex as piano and voice in
the manner you've attempted will give you a headache and with
sound that can cause headaches for others who try to enjoy such.
See my web site and reviews there (site listed below) for descriptions.
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo
---
<<
Subject: Mic for choir - RODE NT1???
From:
Markus
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 22:43:05 +0200
Hello!
I want to make harddiskrecordings of our choir (ensemble with
about 14
singers, old music), mainly life recordings in church. The mics
should be
also good for organ. Which microphones can you recommend for me?
I want
to use two mics for Stereo.
I have a very good offer for a RODE NT1. Does this one fit my
needs? What
about AKG C1000s in comparison to that? (well, its smaller...)
Any other
idea in the $300 price range?
Thank You!
>>
Hello
Markus,
Your recording situation would be best with a precision matched
set of spaced omni microphones. The ambient information
captured with spaced omni method also needs to have a baffle between
the microphones to make the whole sound coherent during listening
playback.
The human head or an accurate acoustic replication is necessary
to make the proper working baffle. Any other design
goes back to recording sounds in an incoherent manner that the
brain doesn't relate to very well and causes much work on the
listeners part to imagine the live sound emotion and harmonic
relationships.
My web site listed below gives much in-depth background on these
issues and contains many reviews of the DSM mics as well as downloadable
sounds from of many sound/music sources made with this method
and mic.
Many users (see user listings on the Home Page) are capturing
the true sounds of acoustic performance in a most easy manner
using the DSM method. These recordings are most professional
and suitable for later CD replication if desired.
Marrantz has the hard disc recorder that I briefly know about.
This has XLR type inputs for mic. The DSM mics can be used
with such connectors with appropriate PA-10PFC powering hardware.
A less expensive Sony PCM-M1 DAT deck alternative with equal
quality and much easier operation and direct deck upgraded MOD-2
DSM mic powering would seem more efficient and more versatile
for easy operation and portability to get to the best recording
positions. Digital recordings of value could later be downloaded
to a Digital harddisk editing workstation via any portable or
standard DAT' deck's digital ports.
Let me know anytime what you think and of any questions.
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo
----------------------------------------
<< Subj: Re: camcorder microphone question
Date: 9/14/98 8:41:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Michael
To: GuySonic@aol.com
hey,
thanks for the info and the reference to your comprehensive page,
which i
visited and will visit some more.
i need to get rid of the hum in the background.
my subjects are documentary interviewees.
they generally sit three to 12 feet from the camera (camcorder).
my problem may be that i can't plug balanced cables into the sony
trv9
cheers,
mike
>>
Hello
MIke,
Thank you for the reply and the site visit.
The 'HUM" is most likely from the camera motors working against
external mic cables with grounding noise problems.
The DSM mics have a 'star quad' mic cable that is quite immune
to these effects and will allow the best possible sound recording
when used as an external camera microphone.
The Sony recorders mostly feature microphone power at the external
mic jack and will power the DSM microphones fairly well without
PA adapters.
(see discussion on powering: MOD-2/PA-x Mic Powering Page
Using a PA adapter with Low frequency bass filter will allow reduction
of air-conditioning or motor noises from street traffic; reducing
this sound can also be done in post production.
For your purposes of interview mic, either DSM-6/H or EH will
give good performance and allow use for recording much louder
than conversation levels for other ambient sound documentary purposes.
However, for best low noise performance from both the camera and
the mic, consider the DSM-1/M a much better interview microphone
but, has somewhat limited loudness handling as compared
to DSM-6 models.
Mic description on http://www.sonicstudios.com/dsm.htm
Let me know if I can be of service for your requirement or answer
further questions.
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo
----------------------------------------
Subj:
Re: [ProAud] Blumlein stereo and Spatial Equalization
Date:
10/25/98
To: pro-audio@pgm.com
This discussion is, in my opinion (and judging from the subject
thread length), of vital importance to everyone concerned with
the future of true-to-life sound recording. The digital
recording era has pressed this subject to new importance as it
has the quick ability to expose less than adequate microphones
and methods of using these mics.
We must allow that our natural instincts in listening to live
verses recorded sound are not being adequately addressed with
synthesis of recording techniques within the various methods discussed
so far in this thread.
Yes, the method of microphone usage AND playback are very prime
in achieving the goal of reconstructing the live event for virtual
realistic perception. However, speaker type and placement
is second in importance to microphone technique used to make the
recording.
Spaced Omni mics (of smallest dimensions and of very careful 'neutral'
acoustical design) allow for the most accurate sampling of the
sound field. Necessary frequency bandwidth is not an issue
with true pressure Omni's.
However, the conditioning of the reception to spaced Omni's is
what's important to record all the spatial cues in a humanly coherent
manner.
Simply positioning a properly designed HRTF baffle (minus the
ears of the binaural method) between the spaced Omni's is all
that's necessary to allow for what's now missing or terribly difficult
to replicate with the other methods discussed so-far.
I'm sorry that Omni/HRTF method seems too simple and doesn't address
the need to be clever with synthesis, but the natural mechanisms
of human perception are quite complex and should give us enough
satisfaction with just appreciating how well it works when used
in full measure within the recording process.
HRTF baffles of correct design are your own head or
Sonic Studios DSM-GUY (or to a lesser degree, Lite-GUY).
There are no other correctly designed baffles available,
period. (See http://www.sonicstudios.com/multitrk.htm
)
Omni mics need to be of exceptionally neutral design and quite
small to avoid acoustic/mechanical distortions of the sound sampled.
There are a few alternatives other than Sonic Studios and Earthworks,
but true pressure and ruler flat response from ultrasonic to the
subsonic is what's necessary for best results here.
Speaker placement is suggested to be wide and focused to a point
just in front of the listener's head. What's important is
that the sound field is perceived to be at least 180 degrees with
no center deficiency. Careful adjustment of speaker angle
achieves this effect and it can hold up for much less than dead-centered
listening positions under certain room/speaker-type conditions.
Headphone listening is less satisfying unless the phones drivers
are forward of the ears by as much as a few inches and facing
back towards the ears. More like the Jecklin Float-Phone
Electrostatics, but at a much increased forward projection angle.
Sony and others now have phones that attempt this, but the angle
is still too shallow. This eliminates the effect of
the sound happening more on the sides and around the back with
a large hole in the front center.
I know that control over the recording process is paramount to
the music at present and that the HRTF method leaves little control
over just proper placement within the sound field recorded.
However, the benefit is simply recording what we hear in a like
manner so that all the gains made with the digital recording technology
can be finally fully appreciated without reservation or excuses.
We now have the opportunity to just enjoy recording and listening
to fully satisfying and 3-D realistic 2 (or more channel) recorded
music/sound without further wanting for much better technology
and methods, if only we would allow ourselves to give nature full
credit for knowing best.
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo
----------------------------------------
In a message dated 11/2/98 10:11:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
DAT-Heads-Request@fedney.near.net writes:
<< ----------------------------
From:
Len Moskowitz <moskowit@panix.com>
Subject:
Re: Re: MIC Cable Suggestions?
Date:
Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:31:02 -0500 (EST)
Len
Lombardo <GuySonic@aol.com>wrote:
>
Dual Mono XLR-3 female to "Right/Angle molded 3.5mm mini-Stereo
Plug" is the
> only safe way to connect standard mics (also Dual 1/4" Female)
to Mini-stereo
> jacks without risk of easy damage to the minijack or poor
connections.
This is a bit of an exaggeration. Radio Shack makes a nice
quality
right angle adapter that, in my opinion, is better than using
molded
plugs. Molded plugs are unrepairable -- a real pain at times.
Len Moskowitz
Microphones, Digital Interfaces, Cables
Core Sound
http://www.core-sound.com
moskowit@panix.com
Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912
- >>
I
would not recommend using that Radio Shack adapter as it will
put exactly the kind of strain on the jack as is suggested to
avoid! You end up with a very rigid assembly of connectors
that, while at a right angle to the deck, is a rigid assembly
when attaching a stereo plug that can just as easily damage a
jack with a slight tug.
Don't be foolish enough to take Len's advice on this one.
I've known about the Radio Shack Right angle adapter for almost
10 years and would never risk any of my DAT decks with using it.
Sonic Studios Molded adapters have never failed anyone in 8 years
of use.
Maybe Len doesn't know how to make reliable ones as yet?
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo
----------------------------------------
<<
------------------------------
From: Len Moskowitz <moskowit@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Help...what did I do wrong?
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 14:18:55 -0500 (EST)
Eric L <j@netcom.ca>
wrote:
> I recently taped a show at mid-size venue, with a D8 using
coresound
> binaural mics with roll-off filter. I was set up on a balcony
just above
> the soundboard. Instead of clipping the mics to my glasses,
I decided to
> hang them over the railing about halfway down. My thinking
was that I
> would eliminate chatter from the people next to me and the
mics would be
> out of site of security and even if the did see them, they
would look
> like strings from my hooded sweatshirt.
>
> The result was my worst recording with coresound mics (although
all of
> the rest have been very good-excellent). The sound is not
very clear and
> defined (can't clearly hear each instrument) and is very
drum heavy.
> Even though the sound from where I was sounded pretty good.
>
> So what did I do wrong and what should I have done?
Seth already covered this but it's worth repeating.
You don't want the mics sitting against a boundary surface, but
rather
out in free space as much as possible. The reflections from
the surface
will double the apparent loudness of low frequencies and will
create odd
sounding phase cancellations in higher frequencies.
If the sound was good where you were sitting, you would have done
better
by either mounting the mics near your ears or clipping them to
an object
free out in free space. Spacing them two to three feet apart
would have
improved the stereo image.
Hope that this helps!
Len Moskowitz
Microphones, Digital Interfaces, Cables
Core Sound
http://www.core-sound.com
moskowit@panix.com
Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912
>>
Actually placing a spaced pair of 'high quality matched Omni microphones'
against a sold wall or boundary that's facing the sound source
is an excellent way to get a 'PZM type' stereo recording that
usually sounds very good.
The Crown PZM is based on this principle and many amateur users
and a few studio customers have used the DSM microphones in this
manner (spaced about 8-24 inches apart against a wall) with reported
excellent sounding results.
The pickups must be directly against a hard surface (not inches
away). The stereo image is not nearly as nice sounding as
with using the headworn method, but it is a good alternative stereo
mic technique that gives satisfying results when headwearing the
mics is not practical or desired.
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo
----------------------------------------
<<
Subj: HELP!!!
Date:
11/4/98 4:12:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: Ph
To: GuySonic
Dear Leonardo
I bought dms microphones 1 month ago, for recording traditional
songs in Indonesia.
I 'm leaving for Indonesia on next saturday. I began to prepare
my suitcase today and before putting the microphones inside I
decide to test them. I'm stupid to not testing them before ! What
a mistake because I got problems :
I have a Sony TCD D8
I connect the PA6, with a new battery inside, to the deck in the
mic input.
I connect the DMS to the PA6
The deck is connected to a DC in 6V external power
I switch on the deck. Sample 48Khz. Rec mode : manual. AVLS off
Put on my glasses with the DMS attached to them
Sit in front my stereo HIFI, playing the radio, volume : approximatively
like somebody speaking loud. Ready. I begin to record. The level
is very low. I switch the mic sens to High. To get 12db on the
level peak recorder I have to turn the volume knob to 10 !
I change the PA6's battery for a new one. Still the same.
I stop recording. With my Prodif 24 board and Soundforge
I transfert what I've recorded on my computer. I send you a sample.
Scratch, awfull and low sound, nether get something like this,
even with a 3$ mike.
Did I make a mistake ? I don't think so as I started the processus
again and again, step by step, and each time it's still the same.
When you listen to the recorded sound it seems somebody is touching
the plugs. But the deck was on the table, the PA6 too, they were
not mooving at all.
So if you are able to help me before I leave... I need the mikes
ok for my travel. I'm waiting for your answer. I'm sure you are
going to do your best.
Thanks in advance
Philippe
the sample is a wav, about 13s, exactly a copy of what I got on
my d8. Sorry it's 1mo sample...
>>
Hello
Philippe,
Output level on the H model is a few DB lower than the EH model
but will be OK in your H settings if just recording conversation.
However, the noise is from poor connections to the deck (and maybe
the PA to Mic) that need rotating around or a cleaning;
( see mini-connector tips at: http://www.sonicstudios.com/tips.htm/
) and look at the noise prevention sheet sent along with your
microphones to see how to avoid connection noises.
Ambient sound effects, live music, and street sounds are louder
than you might think and the H model should still work well.
(DAT is not level sensitive like analog and even lower recorded
levels can be normalized much later with no problems with computer
processes)
NOTE: DC Power is being sent through the plugs with
the mic signal and will show loud noises if not keeping the plug/jacks
in best condition.
DO NOT put tape around the plug from the mic and the PA-6
input jack to keep the connection from moving.......... this will
cause poor mating at this interface. Instead, (if this is
a concern), use one of the Velcro ties to capture 'just the two
cords' together only.
Rotate the plugs around after cleaning to clear the connection
of any residue or until the noises of movement cease.........
Rotation noises cease to show a solid, clean connection and is
a good way to clear any oxides or contamination (with a
little pure alcohol) from the metal surfaces.
DO NOT get any solvent on the mic plug molded plastic..........
it will soften this material and can coat the metal to cause poor
connection.... Use a cloth to selectively clean the mic plug metal
surfaces if necessary. Both the mic plug and the PA-6 plug/jack
have a ProGold conditioner that should provide good lo-noise service
if rotated occasionally to remove any noise producing (like fingerprints)
material on the mating surfaces.
A little 90+% Alcohol placed on the metal of the plug and rotated
in the jacks works very well to get things good for a long time
if fingerprint residue has collected inside the jacks (as is likely
with the deck's mic input if used a few times before being more
knowing about noises and their causes).
Let me know if after doing what's suggested here and on the web
site works or doesn't work for you. Problems with noises
is common until you follow these procedures carefully at least
once.
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo
=======================
<<
Subject: Recording a Big Band (or any Jazz)
From:
"Stefan
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 19:20:18 +0100
Hi!
I play in a Big Band in Norway, and we're going to record a CD
this easter.
I've worked as a soundtechnician (as an amateur), but only with
live
productions. I've next to no experience with recording.
I would like to get in touch with somebody with some experience
with
recording big bands and jazz ensembles, to share some ideas, and
maby get a
few tips.
Stefan
>>
Hello
Stefan,
A best way to record Big Band is to do an ambient stereo recording.
I and many others have used this approach using my patented method
and DSM stereo microphones. See: http://www.sonicstudios.com/multitrk.htm
and http://www.sonicstudios.com/dsm.htm
There's a few sound clips on the site of big band music on the
links page: http://www.sonicstudios.com/links.htm
Vocals are more challenging with this method as the PA is usually
used for vocals and a special set of speakers place to project
directly to the recording position in front of the band is necessary
to get good vocals coverage; if included with the band arrangements.
Otherwise, you do the recording within a few meters of the band
and adjust to hear a best mix of the entire band. Solos
can be enhanced by moving closer to the soloist during those times
and backing away to the preferred mix position afterward, all
in real time.
Done many Big Band recordings for the local band here and at many
festivals over the years, exceeded anything done previous
with multi-microphone approaches, spaced arrays, or single stereo
type microphones.
BTW, the RAP group is full of studio 'guru'
types that seem to have no clue on how to do a really excellent
live group performance recording with anything other than using
the old and tired mics and use methods that most often don't sound
very satisfying, needing a lot of skill and luck to get something
that just sounds OK at best.
They seem to wish I would go away so that they could go back to
the "old same old" tired way of doing mediocre live recording
work without further thought.
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard & Debbie Lombardo
----------------------------------------
<<
Subj: Re: [ProAud] Are we going about this whole thing wrong?
Date:
1/11/99 8:38:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: bobkatz@digido.com (Bob Katz)
Sender: owner-pro-audio@pgm.com
Reply-to: pro-audio@pgm.com
To: pro-audio@pgm.com
><<What about a light coat of paint instead, on top of
one generation of 48
>bit-processing plus 24 bit dither?>>
>
>Mmmmmm, shifting sands, Bob! (as you don't need me to tell
you, I dare
I'm shifting sands with questions, lots of questions, Rich. The
basic
question is: If a noisy analog tape sounds so good with -60 dBFS
of noise
(or worse), why can't we find a solution to 24-bit digital recording
that
masks the last residual high harmonic distortion? Are we looking
in the
wrong place by trying to get rid of distortion we can't possibly
get rid
of? If the last distortion that's left is the ugly kind, why not
add just a
touch of the "good" kind to mask it?
All I'm doing so far is asking questions....I'm not abandoning
my search
for purity by brute force exercise of high precision....but it's
just sure
strange when you think of it that the more we work in high resolution
recording, the more ugliness is exposed instead of made hidden.
BK
>>
Great
thread!! This is my all time favorite subject and one that
is welcome to see finally discussed here.
The Media in which music is mixed is (or was) air; the acoustic
'in the ambient' mix is perhaps considered to be the 'perfect
mix' of all the elements that make up the composition. It's
the most musical when just 'heard', as the live sound experience
relates well to this process.
When sound is gathered from all non-acoustic mixed sources (multi-mic
and/or pure electronic to analog or digital domain mix mechanisms)
the 'quality factor' of the mix is heard as much less than with
the 'perfect' acoustic mix.
Analog mix boards often use capacitors (a form of transducer)
and bandwidth limited stages to sum the signals from non-hamonically
related sources that more often sounds better than the digital
domain processes that just work in a mathematical domain.
Mixing disassociated harmonic sounds to analog tape may be thought
to be performing a 'healing or blending' of non-related harmonic
content by functions native in the analog deck's electromagnetic
processes. Certainly the addition of 'musical' harmonic
distortion is a factor here to be considered as very important
to the 'healing' of a mix of non-harmonically related sources.
I've personally noticed a lack of this problem when the recording
is sourced from a more natural microphone method where most all
the harmonics in the acoustic air 'perfect' mix are captured in
a psycho-acoustically correct and coherent manner. Recordings
made with this method of acoustic microphone method show the true
worth of digital recording in any bit/resolution depth.
While acoustically outputting all tracks of unrelated sound sources
and re-recording all at once with a suitable (stereo or multitrack)
microphone method that captures this acoustic mix in a coherent
manner certainly works very well, it's not (yet) considered very
practical for most modern projects. Mix to analog
tape is a bit more practical, but also is not as effective as
the acoustic mix process and is using electromagnetic technology
that's one-two steps away from the scrap pile.
Replicating what happens acoustically in the 'perfect' air media
mix in a digital process seems the 'holy grail' of this subject.
One that may take even more powerful processing than is to be
believed. Using a natural microphone method as often as
possible to record those acoustic instruments and performances
is another practical technique until a 'natural' digital mix process
is better understood.
Using advanced analog mixers with non-coherent source 'harmonic
blend/enhance' ability may be the most practical solution until
digital processing is at least an order of magnitude more efficient
and/or faster.
Harsh Digital sound is much more a problem with non-coherent harmonics
from multitrack methods of sound compilation than a fault with
digital recording itself. The use of analog mixers and tape
only allowed some rather poor and little understood recording
methods/practices to be passable. Digital processes are
not nearly so accommodating as analog in piecing together non-acoustically
related recorded tracks.
Recordings made with natural ambient mic methods are the best
available for getting the sound right from the very start.
But this is not what most multitrack addicted recordists want
to hear as this means a tremendous loss of 'control' and surrendering
to accepting of what-you-hear, is what-you-get recordings.
However, there is bound to be an audience of some size who
would appreciate more recordings made in this manner of all kinds
of music styles.
Anyway, it's just hard as hell to fool with Mother Nature in the
music-harmonics domain.
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard Lombardo
----------------------------------------
<<
Subj: microphone question
Date: 1/11/99 10:47:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: charles
Reply-to: .com
To: GuySonic@aol.com
I wonder if there's a way now known or a microphone that
has been developed that would enable me to perform voice-over
recording without extensive sound-proofing in my home studio.
I currently record professionally, with a great deal of success,
from my home but even with a closet framed out to be a "sound-proof
booth", I still must be careful to turn off the central air conditioning
unit and hope no plane flies over while recording.
Before investing in an expensive acoustical booth, I want to continue
to research the full range of microphones which may be available
that would be directional enough to record the best aspects of
my voice while blocking out other noises and annoying frequencies,
etc.
Any suggestions?
--
- Charlie
Professional studio for:
Instant voice-overs by ISDN
Same Day voice-overs (Delivered FREE) via the internet
Next day voice-overs on DAT
>>
Hello
Charlie,
Constant and steady background noise recorded into the microphone
you prefer for quality-of-vocal reasons can be greatly reduced
(to a varying degree) using noise reduction features of
software like Cool Edit. Other less constant background
noise is not (easily) removed by this method.
Sitting in a well constructed 'luxury' automobile parked in an
insulated (walls/ceiling) closed garage is quite effective as
an isolation booth and may be (partially) tax deductible for your
purpose!
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard (& Debbie) Lombardo
----------------------------------------
Subject:
Re: How to stereo mic Grand Piano?
From: Eleven Shadows <elevenshadows@santa-monica-ca.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 01:20:56 -0800
Michael
Vladimirsky wrote:
>
Sorry I do not know the AudiTechnica mics you mention. If I were
you I'd
> borrow a second C1000 and record the Yamaha with the lid
open in close AB,
> from 1.5 m. distance. The mics ahoudn't be parallel. Adjust
the angle to get
> the stereospread you like.
>
I
think the ATM 31s are small diaphragm condensers that are similar
to ATM 33Rs and ATM 33a mics, but someone correct me if I'm wrong.
If that is the case, you can record the Yamaha with the lid open.
There are a zillion ways to record a piano, but what I would do
is try x-y over the piano, which usually works. I don't know what
kind of music you are doing, but as a general rule of thumb, for
more New Agey sort of stuff, get them farther away from the hammers;
for certain kinds of classical and rock, get 'em a little closer.
However, with a lot of classical, having those mics backed off
and to the right of the piano player gives a more natural sound.
Use your ear. A lot of people do spaced pairs, choosing to hover
the mics over the strings that give it a more dynamic stereo spread.
What
I personally like doing is opening the lid, but having the mics
backed off so that they are outside, and placing the mics at least
three feet from the instrument. To my ear, this allows the sound
to blend and sound more natural. If you have a really great sounding
room, try a spaced pair of omnis. If you don't have access to
that, you can try the two Audio Technicas. I like to try both
spaced and x-y and see which each result gets.
If
it's rock piano, it's often heavily compressed to blend in with
the rest of the music. In either case, the Audio Technicas are
probably pretty bright mics, and I personally find that bright
mics frequently help with the piano sound quite a bit.
>
Michael Vladimirsky
> russian professional microphones
> +7(095)1906152
>
> <19990205014812.26737.00000949@ng-ca1.aol.com> ...
> >I am going to record a Yamaha grand, 6 to 7 foot, in
stereo. I have SM57, C1000, two ATM31s, an old small D Audio technica
omni, and an Astatic mic that is a lot like a SM57. Going through
a couple single channel Tube MPs into an Akia DSP12 Hard disk
recorder. Any suggestions on mic choice (other than get better
ones) and set up?
> >
> >Craig Birchfield
> >
> >"You can check your anatomy all you want...you get
right down to it this far inside the head it all looks the same---No,
No, No, don't tug on that! You never know what it might be attached
to." >Buckaroo Banzai (while doing brain surgery)
> >
--
Ken/Eleven Shadows, looking for a Super 8 camera and Super 8 projector
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eleven Shadows * ES songs on Real Audio * Music Reviews * Travels:
Peru-Ladakh-Kashmir-India-HK * Tibet * Real Audio Radio Shows
http://www.theeleventhhour.com/elevenshadows
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>>
As Ken stated "there's a zillion ways
to mic a piano" for recording purposes.
But there are just a few less than a 'zillion'
ways to get an acceptable 'piano sound'. There are even fewer
ways to mic for 'THE sound of a piano'.
Placing
mics using the 'here and there' way, will reliable get that 'piano
sound' we've grown accustomed to hearing in popular music tracks
and there's almost a 'zillion' ways to approach this to get a
unique 'piano sound' to fit the any occasion.
However,
If wanting to mic for a realistic 'sound of a piano', the 'here
and there' way of mic placement is NOT the way to go, but ANY
of the stereo microphone methods discussed so far IS A WAY for
intention of recording a convincing 'real piano' sound. To succeed
with this however, presents far fewer ways (choices) of mics and
'using method' and presents a far greater 'skill level' challenge
and/or being 'very lucky' to consistently get satisfactory results.
Far from being impossible, it's at least much more difficult for
a number of good reasons.
The
intention of recording piano realistically involves a stereo mic
method as the output of these is two channels much like our own
two channel hearing way of hearing sounds. So stereo mics need
to record two different perspective that will most satisfy our
natural hearing sense.
For
us to be convinced of hearing a real piano within a recording,
the stereo mic must record sound in a 'unique' way that includes
'psycho-acoustical' information within the two tracks of recorded
audio. While the 'psych-acoustical' information necessary for
us to hear a convincing sound of a piano is 'unique', the uniqueness
of the stereo mic/method of using such, should not be TOO uniquely
different from our own way of 'uniquely' hearing sounds.
And
here's the rub of the stereo mic methods discussed so far: They
can easily be far TOO unique and present only a 'partial set'
of proper psycho-acoustical cues; often including (free of charge)
a whole new unique set of strange (to our normal hearing) sound
cues that are not 'coherent' or recognized (without doing 'mental'
conversion type interpretation work) as part of a real sounding
piano.
The
stereo mics discussed so far are unique to each other (including
us) in larger or smaller degree with mic placement rather critical
to each new ambient situation. Because critical placement is often
different with each 'type' of stereo mic/method (assuming the
same ambient working condition), being able to listen yourself
for an acceptable 'heard acoustic mix' of instrument and ambient
(room, hall, etc.) is ALL IMPORTANT.
However,
because of the degree of 'TOO much uniqueness' of each stereo
method discussed, just listening will not reliably work unless
you're (as mentioned earlier) very lucky. What you hear is NOT
OFTEN ENOUGH what you'll record with stereo microphones and you'll
need a lot of experience, luck, and/or time for the 'trial and
error' record/playback procedure necessary to avoid disappointment
from having assumed too much.
I
would be much nicer to learn to quickly hear a microphone position
(music + ambient mix), plunk the microphone right there, and roll
tape (or spin hard drive) and be much more assured of getting
what you heard because the stereo microphone is not so unique
to our own perceptions of sound.
There's
only one stereo microphone 'way' that'll consistently allow the
'what you hear is what you record' assumption regardless of situation.
That microphone is a 'Head Related Transfer Function' (HRTF) type
of stereo microphone that uses a unique baffle between two very
small, precision matched omni mics.
This
type of stereo microphone is rarely discussed or mentioned (at
least here) perhaps because it's TOO much a 'no brain'R'??
Not
being challenging, needing much skill, being lucky, or having
the immense joy of doing multiple tests/retakes makes this type
of stereo microphone hard to act expert about for sure, and may
as such, be generally ignored by the standard knowledge base of
available microphone experts.
As
far as I can tell from being around here for over 5 years, it
might just be working too well(!) dampening the joy of endless
discussion of all the challenging ways 'uniqueness' in microphone
'perception' adds to our pursuit for convincingly real (ambient
acoustic) recordings (if that's your aim).
If
mic/method solves a lot of previous problems, what will the 'problem
solvers' now do? This remains a real 'bureaucratic type' challenge
and seems worth much discussion of what to do next when 'favorite'
discussed problems are threatened to be solved for good, making
other options less accessible in appearing like good advice.
Fortunately,
I'm here and again helping those who truly desire to make their
recording more consistently real acoustically sounding with the
experience, good advice, and the hardware to back up where my
mouth is. As with many expert recordists, microphone companies
refuse to adopt new microphone designs while the inventor still
lives and breaths. If you doubt this, look for finding the persons
responsible for the classic stereo microphone methods discussed
here, (Blumlien, Soundfield, etc.) they've virtually all died
years before any of these 'now highly discussed' methods were
allowed real commercial production/availability or regarded as
a mic technique worthy of discussion.
Things
being as they are, no need to wait till I'm 'dead and gone' to
get THE stereo microphone right now (only lacking any discussion
of such from those 'teaching' the old standards of recording art),
as I'm one of those very rare inventors that is able to produce
products without the 'recording industry acceptance' due or scheduled
sometime after my passing.
My
web site has the necessary details on THE stereo microphone that
is very NON-assuming or in most ways non-unique to how we hear
sounds; what your hear is exactly what you'll record; 'relearning'
to trust normal hearing IS going to be tough on the 'old timers'
used to sticking one finger in an ear between retakes. But while
there's still life, learning is possible!
Please,
don't all thank me at once for my dedicated efforts! Just go out
there and make it sound more real for the old GUY!
Best Regards in Sound & Music, Leonard Lombardo
Sonic Studios(tm) "Making Audio History With DSM(tm) Microphones"
Ph.541-459-8839 USA Free:1-877-347-6642 WEB: www.sonicstudios.com
"A bit of knowledge coupled to a great deal of wisdom serves
us best"
-------------------------
Subject:
Re: How to stereo mic Grand Piano?
From: guysonic@aol.com (GuySonic)
Date: 08 Feb 1999 00:43:40 GMT
In article <36BC08EC.86AD1A53@santa-monica-ca.com>,
Eleven Shadows
<elevenshadows@santa-monica-ca.com> writes:
>Subject:
Re: How to stereo mic Grand Piano?
>From: Eleven Shadows <elevenshadows@santa-monica-ca.com>
>Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 01:18:38 -0800
>
>> This type of stereo microphone is rarely discussed or
mentioned (at least here)
>> perhaps because it's TOO much a 'no brain'R'??
>
>The question was "how do I use ***the mics I have***
to get the best sound."
>This is the original question:
>
>> I have SM57,
>>C1000, two ATM31s, an old small D Audio technica omni,
and an Astatic mic
>that is a lot like a SM57. Going through a couple single channel
Tube MPs into
>an Akia DSP12 Hard disk recorder. Any suggestions on mic choice
(other than
>get better ones) and set up?
>
>Read the last sentence again. Great. Now read one more time
and try and understand what the guy is saying.
>
>> Fortunately, I'm here and again helping those who truly
desire to make their
>> recording more consistently real acoustically sounding
with the experience,
>> good advice, and the hardware to back up where my mouth
is.
>>
>> My web site has the necessary details on THE stereo microphone
that is very
>> NON-assuming or in most ways non-unique to how we hear
sounds; what your
>hear is exactly what you'll record; 'relearning' to trust
normal hearing IS
>going to be tough on the 'old timers' used to sticking one
finger in an ear between
>> retakes. But while there's still life, learning is possible!
>>
>> Please, don't all thank me at once for my dedicated efforts!
>
>If you're that hot of an engineer, you should be able to get
a good sound
>with inexpensive mics. Put your money where your mouth is
and tell this guy how
>to get a good sound with the equipment that he has. I've tried
to help him. Why
>don't you?
>
>--
>Ken/Eleven Shadows, looking for a Super 8 camera and Super
8 projector
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Eleven Shadows * ES songs on Real Audio * Music Reviews *
Travels:
>Peru-Ladakh-Kashmir-India-HK * Tibet * Real Audio Radio Shows
>http://www.theeleventhhour.com/elevenshadows
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
Ken,
you're correct in pointing out not regarding his equipment limiting
clauses enough and I was going mostly on the thread discussion
that followed + the original post's stated desire to record a
"piano in stereo". I hope the possible (over) dramatic
portions of my past reply didn't completely mask the useful concepts
presented.
> If you have a really great sounding
room, try a spaced pair of omnis. If you
> don't have access to that, you can try the two Audio Technicas.
I like to
try
> both spaced and x-y and see which each result gets.
> ------------ (Ken's post)
>A piano is a mono source? I mic grands
from 10-15 feet away using a
Blumlein array and even at that distance, the piano isn't mono.
The room
reverb isn't mono either but that is another discussion.
With
piano, there can be a lot of experimentation. the sound can be
a
distant room sound all the way up to the very close "head
in the lid
sound" and this is just from a Blumlein array.
Other
techniques such as miking above the pianist's head or from the
far
end of the piano will produce results that may be pleasing for
different
styles of music.
AB,
XY, MS, ORTF, Blumlein, and other techniques will give different
results. Some good some not-so-good.
-
Richard Kuschel
>
If he does have a pair of resonably matched omni (at least
two of the same model/production run), then placing these two
mics on a HRTF (like the LiteGUY) baffle will allow an easier
way to record 'the sound of a piano" with minimum expense
and skill level. If he doesn't have or want to get those two omni's
you mentioned, then 'he can't get there from here' using any other
type of mic if recording a realistic sounding piano is the goal
with the available mic limitation imposed.
Then
Richard opened the 'playing field' with naming (most all other)
stereo microphone methods regardless of mic closet limitations.
So here we are again.
Ambient
stereo recording of convincing quality involves correctly matching
the perspectives of the microphone method with our own as accurately
as is possible. The stereo microphone (mics/methods) previously
mentioned, fall far short of this task and don't look at all like
'us' in capturing ambient acoustic information, but provide plenty
of recorded variations that are 'interesting' if not occasionally
quite satisfying.
Our
hearing reception is neither directional like the Cardioid nor
like spaced microphones floating in space. Our baffles (our head)
is not a reflective disk (like with the Jecklin Disc) nor made
of plastic or foam (like the Achen and Nueman baffle). In short,
all these approaches remain as using methods and materials that
have far too little or no 'natural' acoustic perception mechanisms
along with a whole lot of 'unnatural mechanisms' by design. How
a recording engineer gets the best stereo performance from such
mic systems remains the true 'art' that's most discussed. Unless
you really need to reject some portion of the ambient (suffering
the usual image/sound distortions) considered as interfering 'noise',
there is only disadvantage to using direction microphones in any
kind of simple or fancy (matriced) array.
The
acoustic recording process is only complex because acoustic sound
is complex and our recognition of percieved sound is also complex.
However, if the (stereo) microphone's processing method is kept
eloquent and natural (to us, like HRTF baffled omni pair), then
just a simple microphone system is all that's needed to report
the complexity of the acoustic ambient to our also complex recognition
mechanism via recorded medium.
This is more a situation where the preferred microphone/method
does not 'get in the way' of making an accurate (to our perspectives)
record of ambient sounds or does not add unneeded confusion with
strange ways (to us) of acoustic/electrical signal processing.
Your
choice of a suitable omni mic pair to use with HRTF baffle is
really up to you as there are plenty of candidates available,
some with less than flat response that might be exploited for
providing brightness or similar tonal effects. For the most accurate
tonality/image, small sized capsules of extended ruler flat hi-frequency
bandwidth have a decided advantage. Choices of available HRTF
baffles remains much more limited to those shown on my site.
Of
equal importance to piano recording is using stereo method recording
for other acoustic instruments from flute to drum kit when depth
and realism (as you'd hear it) sound is the intention. With this,
the ambient you're working in can be a nightmare jungle to a paradise
of sound (fill) quality. Using acoustic traps (like ASC's) can
help take most of the jungle out of your available working spaces;
giving much control of the ambient quality and allowing good results
with trying less-than-close mic'd (mono or stereo) ambient recordings
in general.
On
the Super 8 equipment, many of the camera repair shops (especially
in the larger metro areas) used to keep quite a few of these around
for spare parts if for nothing else. Partially reconditioned with
some cleaning and new lubrication (very important), these should
be available for just slightly more than a song these days.
Best
Regards in Sound & Music, Leonard Lombardo
Sonic Studios(tm) "Making Audio History With DSM(tm) Microphones"
Ph.541-459-8839 USA Free:1-877-347-6642 WEB: www.sonicstudios.com
"A bit of knowledge coupled to a great deal of wisdom serves
us best"
|
|
