| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Reid
Ha`aha`a
Andorra
1526 Posts |
 Posted - 05/30/2007 : 3:35:32 PM
|
Preamble: I would like those of you who have Golden Ears to help me with a pleasant dilemma that resulted from a pleasant experiment. Some of you with Golden Ears have technical recording knowledge and some of you don’t. I would be pleased if both subsets of people would help me. I want to know what, if anything, is “wrong” with the recordings I made and to which I will direct you. The comments I would like have nothing to do with “good” or “bad” or “nice song” or “good performance”. They have to do with “mud”, “clarity”, “life-like”, “boomy”, “harsh”, etc. In addition, if you note one or more of these qualities, and you happen to know what to do about it (or them), please tell me.
The ultimate reason for my doing this is that I am puzzled that I think they are all fine, realistic, have no egregious problems and that nothing should be, or could be, done to improve them. I can not think of what else to do to these sound files. I don’t mean to elicit a response of “If you think they are great, then they are great.” In fact, I know I don’t know enough yet to judge (after a few years of learning) and I know that ears and brains get fatigued after repeated listening. BUT, I have listened through every reproduction mechanism we have, and I still come to the same conclusion: I don’t know what I can do to improve these recordings.
Background: For the last 2 years, or so, I have been learning how to record Sarah’s playing and singing with the help of Dave, Lawrence, Mark, and others. Their advice comes from long experience in professional recording. The advice has been appreciated and I have been able to take out all the bad stuff that was put into the sound files by my equipment and environment, and, occasionally, I have put a thing or two in, to improve the result (even though the performances have been impeccable).
Along the way, I have been mystified by how Fran Guidry has been able to achieve such clean recordings. You have heard them before on Taropatch collections and you have lately heard them on Fran’s CD. I saw pictures of Fran’s microphones and they were tiny little things that seemed to be placed at odd places on his guitar. His CD led me to investigate further and brought me to his blog: http://www.fxguidry.com/pblog/ where he described and demo’ed recordings by inexpensive condenser omni microphones, particularly the Naiant MSH-2, that sells for $35. I had also read web descriptions by people like Ty Ford, a sound engineer and guitar player, who talked about “just jamming an omni in the sound hole and recording” – which probably does a horrible injustice to what Ty really said. Of course, I dismissed it as nonsense. Anyway, since they were so cheap, I bought a pair of Naiant MSH-2s, with mounts, and recorded 6 instrumentals by Sarah in our bedroom. How much could I lose? Part of the gestalt of this whole business is that one should try to modify one’s recording room so that early reflections are avoided. I have been doing so in an ad hoc manner for some time, and did do again. This involved hanging a blanket behind Sarah, and covering up mirrors, and other hard surfaces, in our bedroom (our recording room) with cloth and clothing. Basically we messed up our bedroom. We did this again.
The semitechnical details: The guitar was a McCollum Meghann with an old stiff redwood top over a Claro walnut body. The Meghann is roughly OM sized. It is fairly neutral, in the sense that an adirondack/mahogany guitar is fairly neutral – not bright, not chocolatey rosewood dark. But, it is resonant – it sustains about 6 to 10 seconds (like all our guitars). It had fresh D`Addario PB Lights. One omni was placed 2 inches away from the center of the bridge directly (90 degrees to the body) at the lower bout, and the other omni was placed 3 inches from the body/neck join (so Sarah’s fretting hand was free), 90 degrees to the body. The signal was routed through a Mackie 1204 mixer’s preamps into an Echo Layla3G and thence into Adobe Audition. I took out 20 db noise from each channel (the mics seemed, by eyeball, to be about 10 db noisier than my AKG 3000s) and I High Limited each take to -.5 dBFS. That’s it. What you will hear has had no other processing. I looked at all the analytical widgets and they show me just what I have seen on pro recordings I have ripped and learned from: nice stereo image, no peaks in the wrong places (except for maybe a slight 6khz rise), a roll off at about 16khz as advertised (which is mostly concerned with leading edges waveforms), all the sound is concentrated as if it had been slightly compressed.
Disclaimer: In no way do I want this to be a dispute between Cardioid people and Omni people. What I want is help, because I can’t think of another thing I can do to make these pieces sound better.
Where to listen: http://home.comcast.net/~hawaiianmusic/index.html
These are 3 instrumental clips of about 90 seconds, each converted to 320 kbps MP3s. If you can’t deal with those, tell me. I can put up bigger wavs, but I hesitate to put up smaller mp3s – Sarah doesn’t like lower rez – she hears bad artifacts.
If the site tanks, tell me at once, please.
Mahalo,
…Reid
|
Edited by - Reid on 05/31/2007 01:42:33 AM |
|
|
wdf
Ha`aha`a
USA
1153 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2007 : 05:46:26 AM
|
Ok, Ok...If you insist 
Actually the recordings were very good. |
Dusty |
 |
|
|
Admin
Pupule
USA
4551 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2007 : 06:21:20 AM
|
Watch out for what you touch, Midas!
Mmmm, it does sound very good. |
Andy |
|
|
|
Lawrence
Ha`aha`a
USA
1597 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2007 : 06:42:28 AM
|
quote:
What I want is help, because I can’t think of another thing I can do to make these pieces sound better.
Better in what way do you want?
The recordings sound about as good as you can get with VERY CLOSE miking on a guitar.
quote:
all the sound is concentrated as if it had been slightly compressed.
I assume you did not use any electronic compression, but a somewhat "compressed" sound is typical of very close miking.
Some things I noted on first listen: 1) The sound is very close and dry, which is what you might want for an intimate sound. 2) The sound could be a little brighter and have a more solid low end. This is usually achieved through EQ and multiband compression and harmonic excitation, but is also a matter of taste. 3) Really a part of (1), there is no ambience, if you have a good room move the mics back and use the room ambience, if not then use the reverb and delay effects (CAREFULLY) to add some ambience. I know of one double-grammy winning producer who adds a single 50mS delay to all his guitar recordings. I am not so hard-and-fast about using delay effect (reverb included). Sometimes a dry sound is what you want.
|
Mahope Kākou...
...El Lorenzo de Ondas Sonoras |
Edited by - Lawrence on 05/31/2007 08:48:29 AM |
|
|
|
Mark
Ha`aha`a
USA
1628 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2007 : 08:17:14 AM
|
Hi Reid -
I'd never claim to have golden ears for a minute, though I have had the honor of working with a couple of engineers who do. Also, you posted MP3 files, which cannot possibly contain enough sonic information to really make a judgement. So, take this with several huge grains of salt.
However, since you asked for a professional opinion I'm not gonna pull punches...
What you have done is demonstrated the difference between making good recordings and recordings that sound good. In other words, you have done a decent job of capturing what your itty bitty mics heard when placed a couple of inches in front of a good guitar played by someone with a fairly consistant, albeit very light, attack.
Do they sound "good?" Not to me. Here's why:
As Lawrence points out, the lack of ambience is a huge problem. I listened on headphones, which accentuates it (with speakers, the room accoustics add back some of what's missing.) Humans use ambience clues to place a sound in space -- without it, recodings sound dry, unnatural, and ultimately, fatigueing.
The close mic'ing accentuates some of the problem areas of both the guitar and Sara's touch. No offence meant -- but the top ain't moving all that much, which might have something to do with the lack of bottom end. More on that in a sec.
I can't tell from the MP3 whether the grunge I'm hearing in the upper mids is from the mics or the file conversion codec. But there is a certain lack of clarity up around 4K+. That's typical of close mic'ed strings with inexpensive small condensers, so that may be what's happening. It's also a function of how the strings are excited. It's more noticeable on Opihi Moemoe and MaunaLoa than the D Wahine thing, too.
One of the things 'verb does is smooth out the jangly twangy fuzzy bits, by the way.
I really can't tell what's going on way up high... though it appears to be not much. That might also be a function of the codec, the mics, the technique... or???
You mentioned noise reduction -- what exactly did you do and when? Also, how did you get everything to -.5? What kind of limiting? When was it applied? Please don't tell me it was done via softare as you were recording... better to record at a higher bit rate and set the levels so their's no danger of clipping.
The bottom is scarcely there on the first two cuts. Could be the guitar, could be the touch, more likely is the mic'ing. One guitar trick is to place a mic far enough back so the sound can develop. Most acoustic recordings will also do some trickery to fool your ear that the bass is more active, too. Compression is one tool, so's EQ, so are some other trade secrets....
In the D medley there's ton's of stuff bumping into each other in the mid range. It's not a bad thing, in fact, it helps this track sound fuller. Depending on where the rest of the piece would go, you might want to try and define the individual strings a bit more. That's an EQ function.
OK, so basically what I'm saying is that these recordings don't sound finished to my ear. The difficiencies in the recordings can be overcome, though it's always better if they aren't there in the first place.
So, what would I do if you sent these to me to be mastered? First I'd EQ each track to bring out the bass and try to cut the fuzz. Maybe add some stuff both above and below the actual range of the guitar. Certainly add some lightweight compression to smooth out the bass, and look for some way to increase the dynamic range. Maybe try to cut some of the sustainy bits in the D piece... depends.
I'd try to define the guitar in stereo space via EQ and other tools. Have to listen to each mic individually to know how... I'd also pay attention to how the piece develops and possibly ride the gain a bit, or change EQ and ambience over time to help bring out the movement. It goes without saying that I'd be very picky about timing and attack.
By all means I'd add 'verb. Probably both a bit of a bright plate to compensate for the close mic'ing as well as something bigger and more ambient to put the guitar in a nice, comfortable room (wood floor, bookcases, Persian rug and a couple glasses of fine brandy on the endtable, wood fire and a full moon just rising...).
Depending on the cut, I might add some delay or even chorus, too. Panned off to the side, and mixed just to the point where you might hear it if you turned it up real loud and listened close. That would help make the guitar sound bigger and give the track a little more life.
There's a bunch more I can think of, but you get the idea.
On the other hand, if you want a decent recording for archival purposes, you're close.
One last thing: just for fun, try moving the mics around. Close mic'ing isn't the enemy - you wouldn't believe how we mic'ed Keola's guitars for Island Born! But you need to get some more definition and a little more room might help.
Have fun!
Mark
|
Edited by - Mark on 05/31/2007 08:23:59 AM |
|
|
|
Lawrence
Ha`aha`a
USA
1597 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2007 : 09:06:30 AM
|
Mark jangled my memory...
I meant to mention something about the NR. Don't use NR unless you absolutely have to. Although Audition's FFT-based NR is very good there are always artifacts from using it. Keep it down to 12db or so of reduction, 20 is too much. Also reduce the NR ratio (with the NR curve dialog) in the critical 800-3500 Hz range. I usually do TWO passes, the first with a FFT length of 4096 and with at sloped curve emphasizing the high frequencies to recuce Hiss (the Hiss tool does the same thing) and then a second pass if there are LF components with a sloped curve emphasizing low frequency hum and rumble, FFT length of 16384. This avoids the time smearing problems of long FFTs at high frequencies. Result of both passes should target 12 to 15 db reduction. But really, you should not be doing NR at all, but using lower noise mics and preamps!
Some of the Grundge Mark hears is no-doubt due to the NR, and some is no-doubt mp3 artifacts resulting from (much the same) FFT-based techniques but applied to data compression rather than noise reduction.
Also you mentioned a (broad?) 6Khz peak. This is in the sibilance/jangly range and I would apply EQ to flatten this. The overal response curve averaged over the entire piece should fairly closely conform to a -6db per octave slope, starting at a few hundred hertz.
P.S. If you are going to work very close to the instrument, omni's do a good job, due to the lack of proximity effect, but placement becomes ever more critical (as you no doubt already know). I use KM183 mics for that purpose, even at $800 they are far cheaper than your guitars and just as important!
|
Mahope Kākou...
...El Lorenzo de Ondas Sonoras |
Edited by - Lawrence on 05/31/2007 10:22:57 AM |
|
|
|
hapakid
Luna Ho`omalu
USA
1533 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2007 : 10:02:35 AM
|
Needs more cowbell!
:)
Jesse Tinsley |
|
|
|
Mark
Ha`aha`a
USA
1628 Posts |
|
|
noeau
Ha`aha`a
USA
1105 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2007 : 1:09:02 PM
|
| Wow what next, electric kazoo? |
No'eau, eia au he mea pa'ani wale nō. |
|
|
|
Lawrence
Ha`aha`a
USA
1597 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2007 : 1:44:54 PM
|
Ooooh....
That's what I always really wanted to be, but did not know it!!
A COWBELLIST ! !
Lord knows, I already have the cowbelly 
|
Mahope Kākou...
...El Lorenzo de Ondas Sonoras |
|
|
|
`Ilio Nui
`Olu`olu
USA
826 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2007 : 4:47:58 PM
|
Doesn't Madonna practice Cowbellism?
dog |
|
|
|
wcerto
Ahonui
USA
5052 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 02:59:08 AM
|
| You guys are so clever -- Dusty -- good thing you are no Van Gogh; Dog -- the Madonna thing is so funny! Crack me up! |
Me ke aloha
Malama pono,
Wanda |
|
|
|
Mark
Ha`aha`a
USA
1628 Posts |
|
|
wcerto
Ahonui
USA
5052 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 10:40:55 AM
|
| I hope no electric harmonicas out there. One time long, long ago, Paul was recording on an old reel-to-reel (see, it was long ago), and he was playing and singing "Someday Soon"...There's a young man that I know, his age is 21... and playing harmonica, which maybe he held too close to the mike. Whoooo-ee. Couldn't hear nothing but the harmonica and LOUD! |
Me ke aloha
Malama pono,
Wanda |
|
|
|
RWD
`Olu`olu
USA
850 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2007 : 10:20:46 AM
|
First of all,I am new to recording and the mention of reducing reflective surfaces confused me a bit. I am interested in this subject so I am going to add this comment.
When I record, I look for verb hot spots in the room and I usually add reverb to that as well. On the other end, whenever I see pictures of a recording studio, it almost always has acoustic foam or tile all over. Is it a bad idea to seek reflection from a room when recording?
|
Bob |
|
|
|
Fran Guidry
Ha`aha`a
USA
1579 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2007 : 11:56:00 AM
|
Recording rule #1: if you like the sound it's good.
However, first reflections come back so quickly and so strongly in small rooms that they can cause "interesting" effects when they hit the microphone along with the direct sound. Comb filtering is the term usually used to describe the narrow band cancellation and reinforcement effects. Most people find that these effects detract from rather than add to a recording.
Generally speaking, engineers who plan to add additional artificial reverb try to start with minimal natural reverb. It's easier to control the reverb effect precisely if you start with a drier source.
Fran |
E ho`okani pila kakou ma Kaleponi
Slack Key Guitar in California - www.kaleponi.com
Slack Key on YouTube
Homebrewed Music Blog |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
