Singer & piano: art songs

[passion4opera]

Hi all,

I'd like to get some advice on microphone setup for a CD recording with a singer and piano accompaniment. Repertoire will be mostly art songs and a few opera arias. We'll be recording in a medium size recital hall with good acoustics (not too live, but not dry either). Piano is a 9-foot Steinway model D (we'll use full stick).

A setup that I used a lot in the past couple of years (mostly for chamber music and orchestra) consisted of Schoeps CMC621 subcards as main pair with Schoeps CMC62 omni outriggers (or room mics). Both pairs complement each other nicely: the subcards provide a nice image, while the omnis give more space and bass.

Some time ago I added matched pairs of Sennheiser MKH8040 cards and DPA 4006-TL omnis to my mic locker. I started loving the MKH8040s as they serve very well as main pair without feeling the need to add more mics (they have a lot of presence and depth). I actually have some difficulty combining them in the near-field with my DPA omnis and especially Schoeps omnis--it sounds like the mics don't blend very well. Has anyone else experienced this phenomenon?

So, here's what I'm thinking: MKH8040 cards as main pair with 4006-TL omnis as room mics (maybe pointing to the ceiling, with standard silver grids as I find the black grids very bright). If needed at all, I could spot the piano with CMC621 subcards in an AB configuration. An alternative might be to use the CMC621s as main pair and the MKH8040s as spot mics for the piano.

In any case, we'll reserve ample time to experiment with mic options and placement before starting the actual recording sessions (spread over ten days).

Any comments? Other ideas?

Below is my equipment:

MICS (all matched pairs)
Schoeps 621 subcards
Schoeps 62 omnis
DPA 4006-TL omnis
Sennheiser MKH8040 cards
Neumann KM184 cards
AKG C-414

PREAMPS
Forssell SMP-2
DAV BG8

CONVERTERS
Lavry Blue 8ch AD
Benchmark DAC1 DA
Lynx Aurora 8ch ADDA

[markr041]

I have been recording recitals live for many years. My experience is that if you want to obtain a "realistic" recording - one that sounds like a performance, then you do not want to mix mics. That means no spots and no sweeteners for "bass or ambience'" or you have something that will eventually turn off a listener. I have found that ORTF is the best for this purpose. If you want something that sounds good rather than achieve the illusion of being at a concert, then by all means use multiples. What matters most is not just mic placement but also performer placement, which all depends on the hall, of course. So, what you do depends on what you are trying to achieve. If the consumers for the CD are unlikely ever to have heard a concert live, then anything goes.

This is an exceprt of a soprano recital, with piano (mid stick) and harp. ORTF. Does it need additional spots? more ambience? a closer miced voice (but then when she lets loose you get something really awful). Warning: Don't turn up the volume at the start.

[markr041]

Whoa. I just listened to the original 24-bit recording and the mp3 file I posted. The latter does a disservice to the performance, and my points. So, I provide a link to an excerpt (different) from the original recording uncompressed.


http://www.mediafire.com/file/knmtlrjoiyu/Moon Excerpt 2.wav

[Audiop]

Wonderful recording!!

Do you mind if I ask about the gear used?


/Peter

[markr041]

Thank you. For contractual reasons I cannot say which gear I use for recording. For most concerts I use the same cards in ORTF. For "orchestral" organ recordings I use spaced omnis. By using the same mics (and not spending time worrying about matching mics to instrument sets, except organs), I can get a pretty good idea about the role of placement and/or hall. The effects of these are large.

I use Dynaudio 5A's and Sennheiser 650's to monitor what I record. Because I can compare my recordings to what I heard, I have a pretty good idea when I have done well, given I am after recreating the live performance, and not aiming to provide pretty sounds (taking into account Fletcher-Munson and the limits of amplification). What I found knocks people out is the dynamic range. Most people do not frequent live, unamplified music concerts and thus almost never hear live dynamics (and many do not hear much at all after years of attending amplified music concerts).

[d_fu]

As a bit of an antithesis to mark, I think I certainly would use spots. Must admit his recording doesn't sound very "realistic" to my ears. (I have a slight suspicion this might be Andy Simpson posting under a different name...)

If I had to choose from the available material without time for sound check or rehearsal, I'd probably do an AB with the 4006, use the 8040s to spot the piano and the 414 on the voice... With more time to try out things, I'd experiment with the Schoepses as main mics.

As for blending, I've found MKH 50 and 40 to blend very well with other mics, but I've actually not used the 8040 yet.

Never having done much comparing as far as preamps and ADCs are concerned, I'd probably just want all my mics to go through the same preamp and therefore I'd use the DAV and then flip a coint to choose between Lavry and Lynx for AD...

Here's a short excerpt of something recorded with two Neumann KM 131, a 414 on the fortepiano, and an MXL V77 tube LDC on the voice (not too close). No added reverb.

Daniel

[markr041]

d_fu,

I like your recording. Represents a very good example of a particular recording philosophy - everything clear and up front. In no way does it sound like any real performance in a hall, however.The voice is miced like in an old crooner record. Sounds good, but unreal. And the keyboard instrument sounds like it was recorded in another room - it simply does not sound like it shares the space with the singer. This is not a criticism - many people like this kind of recording. No reason that recordings should inherit all live attributes, if it gets in the way of clarity. This is what you get with spot micing.

Good antithesis!

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by markr041

In no way does it sound like any real performance in a hall, however.

No offence intended, but that's exactly what I thought when I heard your recording - it doesn't take into account how differently ears and mics hear, IMHO.

This is what you get with spot micing.

This is not a close-miked recording - you'd be surprised at how little of the spots I actually used, they are well over 10 or almost 20 dB below the main mics for the voice and piano, respectively. The sound hardly changes when you mute them. The AB is fairly close, though.

Sorry for hijacking, back on topic...

Daniel

[markr041]

This is not a hijack entirely for the OP - it is right on point: close micing or spot micing (which is close-micing with more mics) versus other placements (and configurations) makes a big difference relative to which A/D converter or mic brand one uses!

I agree that one places mikes so that the recording sounds just like one's ears hear the performance (an illusion), not so the mic placement is the same as the ear placement. And, ORTF has been studied for decades with respect to imaging and realism. It is difficult to say what is realistic without having the actual performance to compare and getting the levels correct (I know - shades of Andy Simpson). I have no idea what venue you recorded in. All I know is that my recording recreates for me (and a non-random subset of other attendees) the experience of the actual recital.

[NorseHorse]

Mr. Passion-For-Opera,

If you aren't sure what you want, why not record with two different pairs of mains? And then spots for the piano and voice just-in-case?

Nothing wrong with recording six or eight channels even though you may only use two in the final mixdown.

Then you can come back and tell us what the answer to the riddle is.

[John Willett]

I was doing exactly this with Mike Skeet on Monday at the Opera Studio in London.

We were doing two parallel recordings - Mike, on this occasion, used an MS pair of Schoeps with the sub-cardioid as the mid. I used an ORTF pair of MKH 8040.

The two sets of mics were basically in the same place (Mike's MS pair in the middle of my ORTF pair). It was Mike's gig, I was just there as I wanted to get a bit of practice with my new Nagra VI without the pressure of a paying job and this was the ideal opportunity.

We only used a single stereo pair and got the balance by the distance of the singer from the piano and microphones - these positions were changed slightly to match the music at the time.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by markr041

close micing or spot micing (which is close-micing with more mics) versus other placements (and configurations) makes a big difference relative to which A/D converter or mic brand one uses!

True, but in this case, I believe the difference has a lot more to do with the position of the main mic than with spots (which are hardly used in my recording) or the main mic setup as such. An ORTF closer to the performers would sound a lot different. Nothing wrong with ORTF in principle, of course.

I have no idea what venue you recorded in.

See below. One of my favourite halls.

All I know is that my recording recreates for me (and a non-random subset of other attendees) the experience of the actual recital.

I can hardly imagine anything sounding so ambient during an actual recital - the brain can zoom in a lot... Quoting pkautzsch, spot mics do in recording what our eyes do during performance.

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by John Willett

We only used a single stereo pair and got the balance by the distance of the singer from the piano and microphones - these positions were changed slightly to match the music at the time.

So, which pair was used?

[passion4opera]

Interesting discussions...

Originally Posted by markr041

I have been recording recitals live for many years. My experience is that if you want to obtain a "realistic" recording - one that sounds like a performance, then you do not want to mix mics. That means no spots and no sweeteners for "bass or ambience'" or you have something that will eventually turn off a listener. I have found that ORTF is the best for this purpose. If you want something that sounds good rather than achieve the illusion of being at a concert, then by all means use multiples. What matters most is not just mic placement but also performer placement, which all depends on the hall, of course. So, what you do depends on what you are trying to achieve. If the consumers for the CD are unlikely ever to have heard a concert live, then anything goes.

This is an exceprt of a soprano recital, with piano (mid stick) and harp. ORTF. Does it need additional spots? more ambience? a closer miced voice (but then when she lets loose you get something really awful). Warning: Don't turn up the volume at the start.

I wish every recording could be made with just one pair of mics. I agree with you that a single ORTF pair can capture sounds in a very realistic way, hence my hesitation to add more mics as they sometimes confuse the image or add colors that don't match with the main pair. The problem is that using only one pair can be a real trade-off in certain halls. By placing the mics closer or further away, clarity suffers in favor for more ambience or vice versa.

What we haven't considered so far is the repertoire. The Rusalka excerpt that you uploaded may work well in a pretty reverberant hall, recorded somewhat further away. By doing so, we get a more orchestral perception (as if the piece was recorded with the original full orchestration).

Most of the art songs that I'll be recording are pretty intimate and we want to make sure that diction, voice colors and little subtleties are not compromised. Same for the piano, as the piano part is equally important to the voice. This does not mean that I want to close-mike everything! I don't find a classical singer's sound very attractive at 2-3 feet... On the other hand, we don't want to loose all the hall ambience either. I think it all comes down to carefully dialing in the level for the spot mics, if used at all...

Anyone knows how the famous baritone Fisher-Dieskau with pianist Moore were recorded?

Originally Posted by NorseHorse

If you aren't sure what you want, why not record with two different pairs of mains? And then spots for the piano and voice just-in-case?

Nothing wrong with recording six or eight channels even though you may only use two in the final mixdown.

That's what I'm planning to do!

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

So, which pair was used?

It was Mike's paying job, so he used the Schoeps - especially as it was a two day job and I was only there on the second day.

But the comparison was interesting.

The more extended bass of the 8040 was easily discernible, but we did not do proper comparisons as the recorders were totally different.

I will do an edit of a couple of pieces later and send them over to Mike.