Orchestra recording - To EQ or not to EQ?

[pschneider]

Hi,

I'm about to finish a live classical orchestra recording I've been working on for a while (mainly trying to cover up cracked trumpet notes from another recording by the same orchestra). I've only recorded chamber music and small groups so far; this is my first big orchestra job.

I started out using EQ on the individual tracks (main AB pair, ORTF pair on the woodwinds, omni outriggers). However, after toying with the mix, I finally gave up any eq'ing because the result sounded so much fuller and more natural. I felt that instead of just making the higher frequencies clearer or brighter - which seemed to sound nice on the woodwinds - the violins started to sound brittle and the whole recording lacked any of the warmth of the original performance.

Would any of you be interested in listening to an excerpt of the recording to help me decide if it actually needs "brightening up" or whether it is acceptable as it is? I have listened to it so many times that I'm no longer in a good position to judge:

http://aufnahmen.anschluss.org/sampl...vGearslutz.mp3

(Excerpt from 1st movt, Bruckner Symphony No. 7; 14MB mp3 320kbit/s)

I'll be glad to answer any technical question about the recording, and I'm open to criticism.

Peter

.flac-Version of same excerpt, no compression:

http://aufnahmen.anschluss.org/sampl...Gearslutz.flac

[Plush]

Dis mudder dugger is sounding good on my computer speakers.
Nice work!

I almost never EQ any orchestra program material save for dumping out any rumbling on the bottom octave. Your recording does not need any EQ and it's a waste of time to guess what the violins/Bruckner cello writing should sound like. You already know what they should sound like since you recorded them.

Bruckner has a desired dark sonority anyway, so let it loose.

The improvements in your present work would come in the form of searching through the other performances to find in tune trombone choir and to (impossibly) insert more in tune horn passages.

[mosrite]

I would say that the last thing this recording needs is 'brightening up.'

To my ears there is a harshness in the highs (especially present on the strings) and a fairly thin mid range. This was an MP3 clip though so I am not sure how much can be attributed to that.

On the plus side there is a clarity of sorts and good imaging and width (although depth is lacking).

Could I ask what your recording chain was please and also what processing you have done to this? There is a processed sound to my ears that might be the MP3 or might be something else (I think the overall level might be a bit high, is something being pushed to create the harshness I wonder?)

[John Brook]

Murphy's Law - what ever can go wrong will go wrong - at the worst possible time.

This is the reason the KISS principle was developed. Keep It Simple, Stupid!

Seriously, why refocus your attention from your primary task, recording, to something that can be done after the fact, EQ.

My advice is to skip EQ until the final mix.

[d_fu]

Excellent overall impression, IMHO - definitely no brightening up required. (listening with a so-so Yamaha USB card and good headphones).
Nice reverb balance - any electronic reverb here?
Do tell us what mics you used etc. Got a picture also?
There is something funny about the strings - but maybe it's just the strings themselves or it's Bruckner...
The flutes tilt slightly to the right - were they seated there?

Daniel

[pschneider]

Originally Posted by mosrite

I would say that the last thing this recording needs is 'brightening up.'

Thanks, this is quite reassuring.

Originally Posted by mosrite

To my ears there is a harshness in the highs (especially present on the strings) and a fairly thin mid range. This was an MP3 clip though so I am not sure how much can be attributed to that.

I've just uploaded a .flac version:
http://aufnahmen.anschluss.org/sampl...Gearslutz.flac

Does this sound better?

Originally Posted by mosrite

On the plus side there is a clarity of sorts and good imaging and width (although depth is lacking).

Could I ask what your recording chain was please and also what processing you have done to this? There is a processed sound to my ears that might be the MP3 or might be something else (I think the overall level might be a bit high, is something being pushed to create the harshness I wonder?)

Thanks for your hints. You are right: I've used CleanComp to raise the overall level and limit the peaks - bad idea. I've removed it in the .flac file.

I've recorded directly to a MacBook via an Alesis IO|26 interface using the built-in preamps. The main mics and the ORTF pair were Studio Projects C4s; the outriggers were Naiant MSH-1 omnis. There was a spot mic each on the low horns and on the timpani, but I hardly made use of them (I set them to 15dB below the other mics).

I mixed the tracks in WaveLab, panning the three pairs hard left and right. There is no processing apart from the slight compression which I've now removed in the .flac version.

[londontown]

Unless it's vital - always move mics - never eq. Obviously tricky after the fact.
For me one of the finest orchestra recording engineers is Shaun Murphy, and I remember him once saying that the most he's ever moved an eq on an orchestral recording was + or -1db of boost or cut and even then, grudgingly.

[londontown]

incidentally, I actually really liked the recording a lot. Wouldn't eq it. It is what it is.
Does it capture the sound in the room faithfully in your opinion? If so, you've done your job admirably.

[pschneider]

Originally Posted by d_fu

Excellent overall impression, IMHO - definitely no brightening up required. (listening with a so-so Yamaha USB card and good headphones).
Nice reverb balance - any electronic reverb here?

No, this is the natural reverb of the hall.

Originally Posted by d_fu

Do tell us what mics you used etc. Got a picture also?

Mics were Studio Project C4s and Naiant MSH-1. All I have is this crappy cellphone pic - I forgot to pack my camera. You can tell a cello from a violin, but not much more:

Originally Posted by d_fu

There is something funny about the strings - but maybe it's just the strings themselves or it's Bruckner...

Two things: a) The strings are mostly amateur players. b) Bruckner sometimes deliberately indicated which specific string and/or position was to be used to achieve the sound he wanted. As I understood from a string player, Bruckner would for example specify a high position on a lower string, which sounds different than when played on the higher string which the player usually chooses to play the same note more easily.

Originally Posted by d_fu

The flutes tilt slightly to the right - were they seated there?

Not really - my mistake. What got me confused was that the trombones were right in the middle, and I incorrectly remembered them more to the right. I've readjusted the levels in this version:

http://aufnahmen.anschluss.org/sampl...zFluteAdj.flac

Does it still seem skewed?

[mosrite]

Unless it's vital - always move mics - never eq. Obviously tricky after the fact.
For me one of the finest orchestra recording engineers is Shaun Murphy, and I remember him once saying that the most he's ever moved an eq on an orchestral recording was + or -1db of boost or cut and even then, grudgingly.

I'm just finishing off an orchestral recording from saturday night and have had to EQ.

I made a wide -1.5db cut in the mid range and a +1db boost in the air band. That was it. Very subtle but seemed to solve the slight soupy sound I was hearing.

Subtle is the word when working with material of this sort.

I think the harshness, lack of depth and mid range thinness that I am hearing is down to your recording chain. I am impressed with the results that you attained using that chain though. Well done.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by pschneider

No, this is the natural reverb of the hall.

Nice...

Does it still seem skewed?

No. Very nice recording, I like it. Sounds like Bruckner..
I've heard worse recordings on "professional" major label CDs.

Originally Posted by pschneider

Naiant MSH-1.

[Tap, tap...] Is this thing good?

Daniel

[Jim vanBergen]

NO to the EQ. Yes to good mics, preamps, converters, and IDEAL placement.

[MichaelPatrick]

A touch of EQ can be OK to compensate for mic type/placement -- and to adapt to modes in the room. These adjustments of course should be to present the room in replay the way it sounds in person.

[pschneider]

Originally Posted by d_fu

Nice...


No. Very nice recording, I like it. Sounds like Bruckner..
I've heard worse recordings on "professional" major label CDs.

Thanks for your praise!

Originally Posted by d_fu

[Naiant MSH-1]

[Tap, tap...] Is this thing good?

Daniel

Yes . I think the Naiant mics are not the weakest links in my chain. Consider the following live recording I made with just a pair of MSH-1s:

http://aufnahmen.anschluss.org/sampl...et1stMovt.flac

No processing, not even level adjustment. Two MSH-1 in pseudo-ORTF through an M-Audio DMP-3 into the Archos Gmini 400 (16bit wav uncompressed).

I think the mics are worth the $22 they cost.

Peter

[mrsteaks]

Peter - sorry to jump in late here, but I had to compliment you on that recording. It was wonderful! The MP3 sounded dynamic, focused, a wide stable image, and quiet. I would have thought there would be some phase artifacts from your mic placement, but - nope. Nice work!

~~~~Mark S.
Pretty Good Recordings

[Thebassist]

+1 on eq free!

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

A touch of EQ can be OK to compensate for mic type/placement -- and to adapt to modes in the room.

I'm finding that out right now... Working on a baroque opera recording from a less-than-ideal dry hall, slightly reducing a range around 3.3k smoothens out the sound and makes it more pleasant - including the convolution reverb. Should use more subtle EQ in my recordings in the future..

[matyas]

A few weeks ago I did a wind ensemble recording under very difficult circumstances. (No setup time, unfamiliar room.) The end product did need some EQ, but I actually found multi-band compression more helpful. Thoughts?

[NorseHorse]

Bump. Who here is using EQ on orchestra or other large ensemble recordings? Sometimes I find the need to tame rambunctious lows, but rarely mess around with other areas. If a venue has too much reverb focused in the 200-500 area, I have had to play around to see if I can thin it out, but now I just use better suited mics and placement.

Those of you using ribbons as mains, do you regularly boost with a high-shelf?

Related thread: EQ'ing spot mics?

[0VU]

Originally Posted by NorseHorse

Bump. Who here is using EQ on orchestra or other large ensemble recordings?

I am. Probably more often than not.

Sometimes I find the need to tame rambunctious lows, but rarely mess around with other areas. If a venue has too much reverb focused in the 200-500 area, I have had to play around to see if I can thin it out, but now I just use better suited mics and placement.

I use it wherever I feel it's the most pragmatic way to achieve the desired result. I don't see it as a big deal; it's just another tool in the box, to be used whenever appropriate. Sometimes I prefer to change or move a mic, add/move a reflector, absorber, diffuser or screen, throw down a few rugs or boards, or even suggest that the conductor/ensemble address the problem as it's often simple and no hassle for them subtley to change something in their performance to improve the way their intentions translate to the recording and achieve something that would be much harder to achieve by manipulating the equipment, and sometimes I use a spot of EQ.

It's all, about the sound but really just a matter of getting the results one is paid to get in the most efficient way possible. On a session where the meter is running on an orchestra, conductor, soloists, etc., no-one cares how you get them what they want, and if you can save them five minutes of setup time by twiddling some EQ knobs instead of fiddling around with mics it certainly doesn't harm your chances of a repeat booking. On a live recording where setup time and opportunities to make changes can be at even more of a premium, and compromises in mic position and/or type can be forced upon an engineer, EQ can be a very useful tool. It wouldn't necessarily be the first approach I'd try but I don't see using EQ as a problem or an admission of defeat

Those of you using ribbons as mains, do you regularly boost with a high-shelf?

Depends upon the usual things like the mic, position, room, ensemble, programme, intended results, etc., etc. but yes. Maybe not regularly but I certainly do it quite happily whenever it achieves the result I need.

[Corran]

I once recorded a concert with a Haydn piece and then some other very 20th-century piece. The 20th-century piece sounded great, the Haydn had way too much bass. After that I started embracing EQ to fine-tune balance, especially in regards to program material. Also, sometimes I don't realize how loud the low-end is when I'm on location through headphones or portable monitors. High end sometimes is boosted if the room was just really dead sounding (lots of bad rooms around here with too many curtains).

When I use my stereo ribbon I almost always boost with a high shelf, though some ensembles I boost more than others and sometimes not at all (string quartet would be one example).

I'm interested to hear what other people are doing as well. Of course a perfect balance is preferred from the beginning but that doesn't always happens right?

[rumleymusic]

First time reading this post. I for one am shocked at the responses about not needed EQ on orchestral recordings. I know a couple engineers here who would rather do nothing in post. Not a one of them makes a professional sounding recording IMHO.

Sometimes EQ is just needed. Either to cut rumble or to correct a dull sound due to distance micing. Some mics have a tendency to record too much high mid and need to be tamed to prevent ear fatigue. I'm don't think it is alway needed, but if it is, use it, and don't think twice. It is not the same as compressing and destroying dynamics.

Just my 2 cents

Those of you using ribbons as mains, do you regularly boost with a high-shelf?

I have never heard an SF-12 recording that didn't need HF help. Most professional orchestral recordings are quite bright compared to your average Joe's.

[joelpatterson]

Categorical statement: I'll usually always have some kind of EQ and some kind of compressor on just about every single track of the mixdown of a multi-tracked orchestra performance.

Give you a totally random example:

4shared.com - online file sharing and storage - download 03 Herr, lehre doch mich.mp3

The odds that the mic placement and gain settings were perfect, meaning they resulted in a perfect recording that doesn't need any jiggering, I judge those odds to be less than zero.

That would kind of be like driving with your eyes closed-- maybe it would be fine... but probably not....

[aracu]

"I have never heard an SF-12 recording that didn't need HF help. Most professional orchestral recordings are quite bright compared to your average Joe's."

I think it comes down to personal esthetics, and what the particular recording
is about. Adding HF can spoil what the ribbon mic is accomplishing.

[lord_bunny]

I would just eq to your hearts delight after the concert, and review the e.q'd and raw version the next day and see if you liked the changes or not.

[rumleymusic]

I think it comes down to personal esthetics, and what the particular recording
is about. Adding HF can spoil what the ribbon mic is accomplishing.

Granted there are many instances where the natural sound of a ribbon would be perfect (special effects, spots on the brass, ambiance mics etc), though as an unsupported main pair on an orchestra, I am not convinced.

review the e.q'd and raw version the next day and see if you liked the changes or not.

LOL. Sleeping on it is my most cherished technique. It is like a special processor called "What the hell was I thinking?"

[Roland]

Hi Peter, I recorded Bruckner 7th live earlier this year. I've uploaded a similar section to the one you posted here. This is recorded with a simple stereo array, but will give you something to compare relative frequency levels too. Having listened to your sample I think that the HF balance is pretty similar. Yours may have a little more top end, but as you were using outriggers and wood spots that doesn't totally surprise me.

I liked your recording very much!


Regards


Roland

[Roland]

Interesting, says it's uploaded but doesn't appear, possibly it's too large, so I've seperated it to three bits 224kbs!

Bruckner first mov1.mp3

Bruckner first mov2.mp3

Bruckner first mov3.mp3

[mathieujm]

Originally Posted by Roland

Hi Peter, I recorded Bruckner 7th live earlier this year. I've uploaded a similar section to the one you posted here. This is recorded with a simple stereo array, but will give you something to compare relative frequency levels too. Having listened to your sample I think that the HF balance is pretty similar. Yours may have a little more top end, but as you were using outriggers and wood spots that doesn't totally surprise me.

I liked your recording very much!


Regards


Roland

I don't know if Peter is always there but the comparison between Peter's and Roland's recordings is very interesting.

The tonality is comparable but the biggest differences come for me from the outriggers and spots. And I find Roland's balance more real. I find the cello and bass too upfront in Peter's one. I have more the sense of a whole orchestra instead of different groups of instruments, so I can better follow the whole dynamic of the music. I don't think it's a matter of eq...

JMM

[Roland]

Originally Posted by mathieujm

I don't know if Peter is always there but the comparison between Peter's and Roland's recordings is very interesting.

The tonality is comparable but the biggest differences come for me from the outriggers and spots. And I find Roland's balance more real. I find the cello and bass too upfront in Peter's one. I have more the sense of a whole orchestra instead of different groups of instruments, so I can better follow the whole dynamic of the music. I don't think it's a matter of eq...

JMM

In fairness if the event was suitable I probably would have placed outriggers and woodwind spots. I'm not about purism and I would echo 0VU's comments above, in that I'm not adverse to using whatever is necessary to get the job done to the required standard/customers requesit. Would I have ended up using the spot's or outriggers, would have entirely depended on whether I deemed them a benefit to the overal finished product. As I said before, on this job it wasn't an option. Looking at the kit list Peter had at his disposal I though the result was very good.

Regards


Roland