6th September 2009
|
#1 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Sep 2004 Location: Salem, Oregon
Posts: 1,999
Thread Starter  |  A few more short flute samples from the studio for critique
more experimenting with mic placement in the studio - all short solo flute clips, using a pair of AT4051s in ORTF at about 8 feet out, a pair of KM184s in ORTF about 4 feet out, and a mono KM184 about 4 feet out.
no eq, no nothing except a very small amount of plate reverb from the M7 IRs. please let me know your general reaction as to which works best (distance ORTF, close ORTF pair, or close mono mic), and also how you think the reverb sounds (too much too little, not realistic, etc). thanks again for all the comments and suggestions i have been getting.
__________________
jnorman
sunridge studios
salem, oregon
| 
|  | |
6th September 2009
|
#2 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jul 2008 Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,837
|
It is a tough call. I did not like the mono. Between the AT and Neumann, I would pick the Neumann for the first example and probably the AT for the second. Just my preference.
The neumann showed much more presence, but not enough transparancy imho, though I do think it was better in the high registers on both clips, where the AT thinned out and became somewhat harsh.
| 
| | |
7th September 2009
|
#3 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Sep 2004 Location: Salem, Oregon
Posts: 1,999
Thread Starter |
thanks daniel - did you fell there was any significant difference between the close ORTF pair and the more distant ORTF pair (ATs vs 184s notwithstanding)? did the reverb work okay for you?
| |
| | |
7th September 2009
|
#4 | | Gear nut
Joined: Jan 2007 Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 110
|
No contest the KM184's sound much better. Part of it may be that the closer pair seems to capture less room reflections. I thought the mono version sounded fine. My 2 cents.
| |
| | |
7th September 2009
|
#5 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Mar 2008 Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,131
|
The 184 pair is my preference. For this piece I think the amount of reverb is fine but it's such a personal thing and depends on what you want to achieve.
Do you own the 184's or are you considering a purchase?
/Peter
| |
| | |
7th September 2009
|
#6 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Dec 2007 Location: South Georgia
Posts: 2,939
|
Surprisingly to me after reading so many comments on the 184's, I think they sound smoother and have a better high end. ORTF pair is better of course, since that's the way we hear. I would have loved to hear a pair of Schoeps MK4's for comparison, because so far I have not found them to be good on flute.
I think the reverb sounds pretty good. What settings were you using specifically? Whatever room you are in doesn't get in the way this time like your last clips.
I actually recorded some flute with an ORTF pair of MK4's a few weeks ago in an auditorium and it was way too reverby.
BTW I love Image! I've performed that several time in the last few months.
| |
| | |
7th September 2009
|
#7 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jul 2008 Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,837
| Quote: |
did you fell there was any significant difference between the close ORTF pair and the more distant ORTF pair (ATs vs 184s notwithstanding)? did the reverb work okay for you?
| Oh, I wish I read the original discription better 
I think i prefered the 8ft better. That is probably why I think the AT handled some of the Doppler better. Perhaps using the neumanns at that range would be the best of both worlds? Or a little of the closer mics mixed in?
I thought the reverb was perfect.
| |
| | |
7th September 2009
|
#8 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Sep 2004 Location: Salem, Oregon
Posts: 1,999
Thread Starter |
ken, peter, daniel - thanks for the feedback. appreciate it.
bryan - that is the "dark plate" from the bricasti M7 IRs running in SIR. i dont have it on the individual tracks, i have it on the master buss. it is set at -10dB wet - no other changes to the original impulse parameters.
| |
| | | |
New Reply 
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
