This is an interesting thread which I have been following somewhat.
I have made many recordings, and each one is a learning experience.
The technology we have today is (compared to 40 years ago) inexpensive
and amazing.
Given that the gear is of high quality the limitations are:
1) the recording environment
2) the recording engineer
and of these, the environment is a huge variable.
Microphones do not "hear" like human ears. Add to this that our
brains are constantly
filtering all of the external stimuli, especially sound, that our
bodies experience. For instance,
we totally tune out room noise as much as possible at all times. But
turn on a microphone,
record the ambient room sound, and play it back: this is what we filter
out. Mics don't.
Engineers (should) spend a lot of time and effort making a recording
sound like our ears hear
as opposed to what microphones hear. The difference is huge, and it's
no easy feat.
Also, with coincident pairs, there is phase cancellation of certain
frequencies proportional to
the distance between the mic capsules.
A VERY important consideration when making a recording - especially
a "home" or "project
studio" recording, is that all rooms have "modes", i.e. some
frequencies are amplified, while
others are diminished. In some cases a room can have a null -
effectively eliminating that
frequency, especially in certain spots in the room. If a room has a
null that corresponds to
the fundamental of your 5th string in the same location where you
placed your microphone, it
won't matter whether you have a Neuman U87, or a classic ribbon mic, or
a solution D: that
frequency will be absent on the recording.
If this occurs, no amount of equalizing can boost the frequency -
twice nothing is still
nothing. This phenomenon can even happen in cavernous churches if you
happen to choose
the exact wrong spot to set up. For an in-depth look at room modes,
etc. read "Home
Recording Studio Build It Like the Pros" by Rod Gervais.
SO, having a couple of "extra" pairs of mics COULD solve this
problem, because they would
not be in the same exact null or accentuated frequency location in the
room. Having options
makes sense. The bottom line is: if it sounds good, it's good.
If one is recording on location (a church, concert hall, or other
venue) you get what you get.
There is no substitute for a sound recordist with a great set of ears.
Sound should be
monitored through an extremely high quality flat response set of
headphones like AKG
240DF, or even better, a closed-air set with the same characteristics.
The engineer should
be listening intently through headphones to sound characteristics as he
/ she places mics.
If one has the luxury of recording in a "studio", there is no
substitute for a well designed
room. And, even well-designed rooms need sound treatments of one kind
or another.
To put things in a nutshell: if you're going to record yourself, get
the best gear you can
afford, find a decent environment, and USE YOUR EARS !!! If you are
paying for
professional studio time, the same thing applies. You're paying for
it. Don't settle for second-
rate sound. If they won't give you what you want for your money, go
somewhere else. You'll
know when you have a winning combination of engineer and room: the room
will be pleasant
and sound GREAT, and the engineer will probably be easy-going and a
pleasure to work
with. If not, at least they should give you the feeling that they
REALLY know what they're
doing, and the end result should be stellar.
Good luck and best wishes to all,
Tom
Tom Draughon
Heartistry Music
http://www.heartistry.com/artists/tom.html
714 9th Avenue West
Ashland, WI 54806
715-682-9362
Tom Draughon
Heartistry Music
http://www.heartistry.com/artists/tom.html
714 9th Avenue West
Ashland, WI 54806
715-682-9362
> On Apr 3, 2010, at 6:55 AM, [1][email protected] wrote:
>
> I'm sceptical that - assuming the positioning of a
> main pair of mics is very good but not perfect - that adding in
> other pairs that are necessarily even less well placed will
> provide
> improved
> sound.
>
> Like DT said, you don't have to use the other mics.
>
> But I would like to change the term "improved" to "natural".
>
> I think that if there were a demand for it, there is already the
> technology out there right now to allow the listener to choose
> which mics/reverb/combination of such they would like to listen
to.
> How hard is it to just release a DVD version instead of CD and
> choose the reverberation/mics just like you can choose the
> subtitles to a movie?
>
> For myself, not being an audiophile, the important thing with
> mobile recording is reproducibility. That is why I always use the
> same pair of mics in the same configuration (coincident) at the
> same distance. Not close to perfect by any means, but it means I
> can record nearly anywhere and get more or less the same sound.
> Quick too.
>
> Ed Durbrow
> Saitama, Japan
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
