I prefer two mics to one, but I have heard some decent recordings in mono. Two mics in an ORTF spaced at the distance of two ears really does produce a good stereo effect. But if I were recording something, I would use more, in case I put the mics in the wrong place :) dt
really doesAt 09:13 PM 7/23/2010, you wrote: >Ron, > > Excellent points. I've given this matter a lot of thought and > have come to the conclusion that the issue involves much deeper > psychological matters of perception than simply what people regard > as an ideal sound. > > There is a lot of "historical fiction" when it comes to > recording the lute. There is a strange culture of preciosity > surrounding the lute which seeks to capture not so much the actual > sound of the instrument, but rather protray a pseudo-mystical > aura. In this construct, the lute must not issue forth actual > music; it must be transformed into a special body whose very sound > is special and ancient and magical, coming vast distances from > afar, as if it is somehow sent via pixie-dust waves from Olde > Douland's fingers straight to your stereo speakers or laptop. This > is why we have guys using 38 microphones arranged in 152 > configurations on flagpoles to capture every out-of-phase echo > bouncing off anything resembling a reflective surface in the giant, > inhospitable airplane hangers where they choose to record. Great > lengths (and expenses) are gone to in order to avoid having the > finished product sound like a real instrument played by an real person in a > room that actually exists in 2010. This has been the norm for so > long that we're now in the strange position that when one hears a > realistic-sounding lute recording, many think it sounds unprofessional. > > This style of recording will eventually pass. Listen to any pop > recording from the 1980's and it will be immediately identifiable > by the ton of reverb, (especially gated reverb on the snare drum) > chorusing effects, synth pads, etc - in short, a lot of extra fluff > that adds nothing to the song, but everyone recorded that way > because everyone recorded that way. You couldn't run a studio > unless you could show off your closets full of floor-to-ceiling > racks of analog effects processors and were willing to pile on > mounds of the stuff with a shovel. The situation today with lute > recordings and comically elaborate mic setups in gigantic caverns > is analogous to that, although the aesthetic has been around a good > deal longer than a decade. We're slow to change in ye olde lute > world. I am encouraged, however, to hear that many players with > smaller budgets are putting out recordings with better sound than > many of the big guys. > > Recipe for a great solo lute sound: one good mic, a pair of good > ears, a brain in your head and just a touch of reverb for seasoning. > >Chris > > >Christopher Wilke >Lutenist, Guitarist and Composer >www.christopherwilke.com > > >--- On Fri, 7/23/10, Ron Andrico <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: Ron Andrico <[email protected]> > > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Vice Nisee > > To: [email protected], [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Date: Friday, July 23, 2010, 2:51 PM > > Hello Ned: > > Your point is well taken. > > Unfortunately, it is very difficult to > > convince the average listener, even those > > acquainted with the actual > > sound of the lute, that a real, dry, > > non-reverberant sound is ideal. > > The problem, as I see (or hear) it is > > that more people have heard the > > lute on recordings than live and close > > up. Certain > > prolifically-recorded players have opted > > for a sound that was described > > some years back by a Gramophone reviewer > > as a 'psycho-acoustic > > nightmare, distant and close at the same > > time'. If we don't gravitate > > towards a reverberant sound, we can be > > easily dismissed as not ideal. > > Another dimension of the problem lies > > with available technology. It is > > very, very difficult to find a recording > > engineer who understands the > > simplicity of the lute sound well enough > > to record it simplistically. > > When we first approached our current > > engineer (Grammy-award winner, > > Will Russell) and played as an example > > our favorite recording of Emma > > Kirby and Jakob Lindberg on BIS, his > > immediate reaction was to ask > > permission to make us sound better than > > that. It was a process, but we > > finally convinced him that a simple mic > > placement yielded the sound and > > natural balance we were seeking. > > We have experimented on Youtube with a > > few different representations of > > sound, and it is interesting to see the > > results. Typically, the more > > reverberant sound seems to get more > > repeated hits. Our recent posting > > of Sicut cervus/Sitivit anima by > > Palestrina is recorded in a live space > > with absolutely no tampering with the > > Zoom H2, place about 10 feet > > away. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUDplApE45U > > But we deliberately recorded the Christ > > Child Lullaby at home in a dry > > acoustic with the Zoom closely placed in > > an attempt to judge how > > listeners would react. The appeal > > of the music seems to have attracted > > hits despite the dry sound. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9atiweh44WU > > Personally, I agree that one does not > > want to hear a lute's volume > > boosted to represent something it is > > not. The idea of having my head > > trapped inside of a lute makes me > > afraid. But the fact is, we have to > > aim for a standard that is not going to > > drive the average listener away > > because the music is 'better than it > > sounds.' A quandary indeed. > > Best, > > Ron Andrico > > www.mignarda.com > > > Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:53:26 > > -0400 > > > To: [email protected] > > > CC: [email protected] > > > From: [email protected] > > > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Vice Nisee > > > > > > I think my point about lutes being > > 'enlarged' in the recording > > process could best be made by referring > > to specific lute recordings. > > Comparing Jakob Lindberg's recordings of > > Dowland (reissued on Brilliant > > ) with Hopkinson Smiths recording > > "Dowland: A Dream" on Naive, I hear > > considerably more reverberation on the > > Smith recording than on the one > > of Lindberg. At the same approximate > > volume, Smith's instrument sounds > > much larger (to me) than Lindberg's. More > > importantly, Lindberg's > > instrument sounds more natural to me than > > Smith's; more like what I'm > > accustomed to hearing from a lute played > > live. To be sure, the > > recordings of both instruments underwent > > some electronic processing > > before being transferred to CD. My > > subjective impression is that > > Smith's received more added reverb than > > Lindberg's. That's what I hear > > in the Vice Nisee video/audio and - > > perhaps(?) - what Suzanne also > > heard. > > > > > > Ned > > > On Jul 22, 2010, at 6:37 PM, howard > > posner wrote: > > > > > > > The lute would necessarily be > > amplified and there would necessarily > > be microphones; that's the nature of > > electronic transmission of sound. > > If it sounds too loud for you, turn down > > the volume on your computer. > > If it then doesn't sound loud enough, > > turn the volume up. Repeat > > process until it sounds just right. > > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 2010, at 3:05 PM, > > Edward Mast wrote: > > > > > > > >> I agree with Suzanne, both > > about the sound and the playing. I've > > made this observation here before; the > > tendency of recording engineers > > today seems to be to make lutes sound as > > large as concert grand pianos. > > > >> > > > >> Ned > > > >> On Jul 22, 2010, at 11:36 > > AM, Suzanne Angevine wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Was it the acoustic > > that was lush? I almost had the feeling that > > it was an amplified instrument and was > > looking for the cord or tiny > > mike somewhere. But it was nice playing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see > > list information at > > > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > > > > Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for > > the New Busy. Get more from > > your inbox. [1]See how. -- > > > > References > > > > 1. > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2 > > > > > > > > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
