On Apr 11, 2012, at 6:00 PM, Anthony Hind wrote: > Ed > Do I understand that you record in mono? I have often found that mono > recordings are more relaxing than stereo, and analog more relaxing than > digital; so mono analog is sometimes the easiest to listen to. It is as > though the brain has lesswork to do recreating the sound image (trying to > make the two sound images coincide). Although you no longer have indications > of instrument position.
No, I record in stereo if it is solo. Sometimes I record the lute in mono if there is a voice or other instrument because I have just one very expensive Neumann mic and I like to use it on the lute if I can. What I was saying is that if you record in a coincident pattern, there will be NO problems with phasing in mono playback. I don't know who listens in mono anymore, but it could happen. My main reason for using a coincident pattern though is that I can get a consistent sound on different days and even in different locations. I'm essentially lazy. > It used to be true that mono tape had far more dynamic space than stereo > (mono analog with Nagra whole track, instead of stereo halftrack; although I > suppose with two Nagras synchronized for stereo, you would have the same > dynamic space); but is this still applicable with the newest digital > recording medium with various "lossless" compressing algorythms? No, I'm pretty sure the dynamic range is the same for mono or stereo in the digital domain. You choose the bit rate, after all. Personally, I feel the recording capabilities today far exceed the playback systems most people listen on. If I record at 24 bits 48k or 44.1k (some record at double or quadruple that sample rate) with nice mics, the advantages are more in the manipulation/effect/processing domain than in the playback medium. That is: GIGO. Put yet another way, start with lots of headroom and high quality and by the time it is reduced down to AAC or mp3 for a YouTube video and played on computer speakers, there still should be some discernible difference from a recording made with a PCM/mp3 recorder using its built in mics and recording in mp3 rather than wave format. > ________________________________ > De : Ed Durbrow <edurb...@sea.plala.or.jp> > À : LuteNet list <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> > Envoyé le : Mercredi 11 avril 2012 2h22 > Objet : [LUTE] Re: Miking a lute/theorbo > > Brad, > I favor a coincident pair because there are no phase problems in mono, but > even more so because it is easy to recreate. I don't have a problem with > close miking (30-40cm). It is a matter of placement and mic quality, though. > Every environment and instrument is different. It is probably safe to say > that many engineers don't have a lot of experience with lutes and don't know > the sound to go for. S/He might be able to fix the sound quite a bit after > the fact, with your guidance. Maybe the two mics are out of phase. That will > give a tinny sound. At any rate, s/he might be able to eq it to improve it. > > >> On the weekend I recorded two pieces in a professional recording >> studio. I was accompanying a singer on the theorbo. The recording >> engineer aimed two mikes quite close to the body of the theorbo. >> >> >> On the recording, the sound of the theorbo is very tinny and distorted, >> and bears almost no similarity to the natural/ acoustic sound of the >> instrument. >> >> >> Has anybody had experience with miking a lute or theorbo for recording? >> >> What mike placement gave you the best results so far as concerned >> fidelity to the natural sound of the instrument? >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> Brad >> >> >> >> To get on or off this list see list information at >> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> >> >>
