For what it is, the Zoom H2 is a decent sounding box, and very handy. I
use it for teaching classes on how to get started in AV. But you cannot
really improve the sound with EQ and a notch filter, the sound of the
lute is too complex. What happens is as you fix the sound, you add
coloration and it sounds artificial. It may not be noticeable to most
people, but you will notice it, and the only people who listen to lute
recordings are other lute players :)
The best you can do is to roll off the bass below 64 Hz which will
mostly eliminate electronic noise and rumble from traffic and airplanes
and so on the add 1.2dB of gain with a Waves L2 limiter and and some
high quality reverb. Next step up is an a pair of $89 mics like the
Studio Projects B1. If you consider that they sound nearly as good as
mics I paid $800 for back in the 1980s, I would say prices are
reasonable.
Consider for a moment that if you go on to Amazon or better yet
Magnatune most of the lute recordings do not sound very good. And at
least 75 percent of these use pretty expensive mics. What this means is
that mic placement is key, and also that it isn't easy to record the
lute or more ppl would do it better. Having said that, with a pair of
MKH 20s and a Fostex FR2 LE, it is tough to screw it up.
The Zoom is decent, but you can't push it to the top level. Placement
of the Zoom will change the sound more than anything. It doesn't pick
up as much surface noise as some mics, but it does pick up some.
At least 50 percent of the surface noise in a recording is technique,
but that is a long topic. And if you get rid of the other 50 percent,
you won't really hear it so much.
There's really no point in using audacity, but as long as your editing
software accepts VST plugins you can add a good reverb to the final
product. If you plan on doing anything extensive, or if you plan on
doing it for more than a few years, use one of the big two: Sequoia or
Pyramix. Samplitude is the same as Sequoia and you can often get the
budget version for a few dollars. I sometimes see older versions for
$10 and anything above version 8 is fine.
dt
__________________________________________________________________
From: William Samson <[email protected]>
To: David Tayler <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 3:02 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: home recording
Hi David,
Can you recall what frequency range(s) is(are) responsible for
bringing
out the 'plicky' sound? I sometimes have trouble with my Zoom H2 in
that respect and it would be good to get a steer as to where to
attack
it with the EQ in my software (Audacity). At the moment I cut
everything beyond 10kHz, and it helps a lot, but refinements would be
good.
Thanks,
Bill
From: David Tayler <[1][email protected]>
To: "[2][email protected]" <[3][email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013, 4:33
Subject: [LUTE] Re: home recording
The omni capsule is an NT45, not the 55. It has a very different
character than the cardioid and is excellent in free field omni
applications.
As far as brightness, many factors cause this, but in general,
omnis
tend to have less of a presence peak than cardioids. Of course a
mic
like the MKH 40 is pretty flat 20-20, however, there is an acoustic
principle at work as well. AS good as the NT45 is, I do not
recommend
it for lute if you are only buying a pair. That is because the mic
works best at slightly longer distances from the sound source, and
with
the lute you have to have a medium distance mic to keep the signal
to
noise ratio under control, and to avoid picking up surface noise.
As
flanker mics in an array, or surround mics, they are fine, if not
quite
as smooth as the "big three".
snip
less brightness from an omni?
snip
An omni will, in most acoustics, pick up more reflected or ambient
sound than a cardioid, by design. In a church or even a room, as
the
sound radiates out and back, it loses high frequency energy, then
is
picked up by the mic, So an omni has a greater ratio of rolled off
sound to direct sound than a cardioid, which in turn lowers the
total
amount of high frequency energy. Some inexpensive mics have big
presence peaks to make them sound more like pop music, but most
omnis
are fairly conservative in this regard.
The lute has two almost impossible recording problems--surface
noise
and a high frequency bump in area we associate with speech. Because
of
this, most mics, no matter what the specs, no matter what the
reviews,
no matter what the salesperson who has never made a classical music
recording will tell you, most mics will fail miserably at recording
the
lute, and make a scratchy, "plicky" (plastic+icky)
sound. Plick plick plick. The B1 and the Oktavas, as well as the
very
expensive ones I mentioned, just happen to have the EQ notches in
the
right places to counteract the basic noise from the lute, or at
least
keep it to a minimum. Preamp circuit topology also plays a role,
but
the mic is the main source of the noise and plicky sound.
dt
__________________________________________________________________
From: andy butler <[1][4][email protected]>
To: [2][5][email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2013 1:24 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: home recording
David Tayler wrote:
> Of the Rodes, the NT5 omni capsule is way better than the
> Rode cardiod capsule for lute,
right, that's the NT55
less brightness from an omni?
There's also an equivalent mic from SE electronics. SE4
(but the freq response diagram for it shows a sizable bump at 8kHz)
andy
To get on or off this list see list information at
[1][3][6]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. [4][7]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. mailto:[8][email protected]
2. mailto:[9][email protected]
3. [10]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
4. [11]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. mailto:[email protected]
2. mailto:[email protected]
3. mailto:[email protected]
4. mailto:[email protected]
5. mailto:[email protected]
6. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
7. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
8. mailto:[email protected]
9. mailto:[email protected]
10. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
11. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
