The dynamic range of digital exceeds the background noise in your room.
For example, if your DR is 110 dB, and your background is 45 dB, you
have only 65 dB range.
A typical lute has DR of maybe 40 dB.
Recording in 24 bits, each "bit" is worth 6dB. So when recording, set
your levels high, but not at the very highest, becasue your end result
will be 16 bit or less. USe that extra resolution to downsample and
normalize at exactly the time of output for the best result. Use 48 kH,
not 44.1: CDs are dead and 48 sounds better.
Consider AAC 24 bit/48kHz for output--best kept secret in audio. Most
people not only throw away the bits, they use a cheapo encoder that
chops off all the high frequencies, even though free or inexpensive
ones are available and need only to be set up once.
dt
__________________________________________________________________
From: Ed Durbrow <[email protected]>
To: Anthony Hind <[email protected]>; LuteNet list
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, April 11, 2012 3:48:35 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Miking a lute/theorbo
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 <[1][email protected]>
> A : LuteNet list <[2][email protected]>
> Envoye 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
>> [3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>
>>
>>
--
References
1. mailto:[email protected]
2. mailto:[email protected]
3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
