Early classical music live recording

[Earcatcher]

Dear all,

Attached is a sample from my first attempt at recording early classical ensemble music (15th century). It is a live recording with audience in a hall that has an air circulation system that cannot be shut down entirely. Please feel free to comment on anything that you think needs improvement. I didn't EQ this sample.

I found myself a great opportunity to practice recording with good musicians on a nice location, in order to improve my technique. A series of these kind of concerts is coming up and I will use them for my own education. No pressure from client expectation this time, so I can afford myself to screw up if I have to.

[boojum]

Sounds pretty good. You could get a bit back to capture more of the room. Do I see mics on the floor as boundary layer mics? Would you spell out how you mic'ed this?

Thanks

[Earcatcher]

Originally Posted by boojum

Sounds pretty good. You could get a bit back to capture more of the room. Do I see mics on the floor as boundary layer mics? Would you spell out how you mic'ed this?

Thanks

There are two sets on the boom: an M/S-pair consisting of Schoeps MK22 and MK8, plus a Royer SF-24 blumlein. On the floor two Schoeps BLM3 boundary layer mics. What you hear is mainly the boundaries plus M/S, with a little SF-24 mixed in for space. Mixing in a lot more room would be possible, but I like this better as it is less noisy. In this fragment the singers are standing in a straight line behind the boundaries. The rest of the concert they were where you see them on the picture. I could post some of that when I'm finished with it.

[semion]

Earcatcher , I love it . I dont mind the more upfront aesthetics at all.
What was your chain ?

[Earcatcher]

Originally Posted by semion

Earcatcher , I love it . I dont mind the more upfront aesthetics at all.
What was your chain ?

Chain was: all mics directly into Sound Devices 788T SSD with CL-9 control surface. 788T clocked by Mytek ADC 192 at 96kHz (24 bit). Next time I plan to use outboard preamps to see how that will sound. I didn't want that hassle for a first time in this situation.

[Earcatcher]

For those who want a slightly more distant sound I have made a different mix of the same tracks. Blumlein upped a bit and boundaries taken down. Let me know which one you prefer!

[mljung]

Originally Posted by Earcatcher

For those who want a slightly more distant sound I have made a different mix of the same tracks. Blumlein upped a bit and boundaries taken down. Let me know which one you prefer!

They are both good, but I think the I prefer this [more Blumlein] version for that extra air to the voices...

[Listened on headphones, Sennheiser HD580]

::
Mads

[mathieujm]

Nice ! I also prefer the second mix. But it has a completely different stereo image. Did you invert some L/R informations ?

[Earcatcher]

Originally Posted by mathieujm

Nice ! I also prefer the second mix. But it has a completely different stereo image. Did you invert some L/R informations ?

Thank you. Yes, this is interesting, isn't it? I double checked all tracks, but all are correctly routed. The only thing I changed was the balance between the tracks. The second one has much better localization of the voices. The first one is more A-B, while the second one is more phase coherent (M/S plus Blumlein, both in the same axis). This is exactly what I made the recording for: to educate myself (and hopefully some others). So far it has been very rewarding.

[boojum]

Earcatcher, yes, the localization is better in the second and there is a greater sense of depth and breadth; better definition. I am curious why you ran Blumlein and MS together. Have you listened to the mix with just without MS and then without Blumlein? I can't so I have to ask you about it. It is a good recording.

Thanks.

[Earcatcher]

Originally Posted by boojum

Earcatcher, yes, the localization is better in the second and here is a greater sense of depth and breadth; better definition. I am curious why you ran Blumlein and MS together. Have you listened to the mix with just without MS and then without Blumlein? I can't so I have to ask you about it. It is a good recording.

Thanks.

My M/S was decoded at recording stage, so not afterwards. I set it up a little more forward sounding than the Blumlein so that I could blend out a possible hole in the middle. Both sound fine individually, but the blend seems to work very well too and gives me the exact control that I was looking for. I wanted to experiment with it. It's the A-B that gives a more fuzzy localization image, although much drier and with more bass info, which is why I have mixed it in. I'm thinking of making a boundary M/S for better imaging consistency next time. The combined M/S and Blumlein probably stays as I like how it worked out.

[MichaelPatrick]

Very very nice. What a luxury you've got to capture with several arrays at once!

What mics are in the Schoeps boundary plates?

Just curious, too, why you didn't want to use the 788's internal clock?

[Yannick]

I cannot comment on the sound right now, but unless you have leaden mics, your stand is never going to top over !

For sure !!!!



I have a slight idea why the MS version would sound more AB.
Could you post a more detailed pic of the setup ?

[Earcatcher]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

Very very nice. What a luxury you've got to capture with several arrays at once!

What mics are in the Schoeps boundary plates?

Just curious, too, why you didn't want to use the 788's internal clock?

Thank you for liking it. I feel that I still have to learn a lot about recording this type of music. It sure is a luxury to have several array options at once. I have considered adding another pair (ORTF, I had it available), but I thought it was going to look too distracting for the audience. Like a big antenna. Maybe next time.

The BLM3 boundary plates are actual microphones. You just screw a CMC6 unit onto them. See the details here: Boundary Layer Capsule BLM*3 - Overview - SCHOEPS.de.

The clock of the 788T is very good, but the one in the Mytek is better. Also, I plan to use some outbourd preamps next time and then I will A/D convert the main channels with the Mytek and clock the 788T's converters to that signal. A very steady clock is extremely important for recording complex sound images with high frequency ingredients.

[boojum]

Earcatcher, I am a bit of a 788T fanboy but I do know it is not perfect. I am curious about the clock differences you mention. I assume you have tested Mytek against 788T. Is there a great difference in your opinion? Have you spoken to SD about this? I would think they would be interested.

[Earcatcher]

Originally Posted by Yannick

I cannot comment on the sound right now, but unless you have leaden mics, your stand is never going to top over !

For sure !!!!



I have a slight idea why the MS version would sound more AB.
Could you post a more detailed pic of the setup ?

It's never the mics that do it! I have a cinema backround and then you are very aware of the unexpected ways in which a stand can come down... and the catastrophical effects that can result from it.

I do not have a detail pic of the mic setup. It's a very nice construction that can be converted into anything else with great precision. It can be tilted without disturburing the perfect alignment between the different mic arrays and it is optimised not to interfere with the sound in any audible way.

[Earcatcher]

Originally Posted by boojum

Earcatcher, I am a bit of a 788T fanboy but I do know it is not perfect. I am curious about the clock differences you mention. I assume you have tested Mytek against 788T. Is there a great difference in your opinion? Have you spoken to SD about this? I would think they would be interested.

Yes, I did test this. The differences are subtle, as usual with converters, although clearly audible. Any improvement that can be achieved should be pursued, IMO. The 788T is very flexible because it is very good as a standalone, but can also work with external conversion and external preamps. This makes it a kind of upscalable piece of equipment. Good for both light and compact use as well as very high quality multitracking. I have spoken to SD about the clock differences, but I wouldn't know what they can do about it, so didn't talk in such terms. Mind you, the clock is very good, it's just that the Mytek clock is extremely good. The Mytek is often used as a master clock unit alone.

[Earcatcher]

Here is the version of the sample posted above in its final incarnation. Only levels were set inside the box (note: I edited the original files in Final Cut Pro), but EQ and compression were added in outboard while making a playout for the master. This was general EQ/comp, so not particularly for this excerpt, but for the entire performance. On request of the musicians I kept the stereo image a bit more narrow because they liked the blending effect better this way. I thought some more breath was needed, so opening up the top was my own choice. Please feel free to comment at the result, especially compared to the earlier files. After all I made this recording for my own education and hopefully for yours as well.

[boojum]

Hey, that's really good! It all comes together very nicely: room, artists and gear. Thanks.

[radeng]

Wonderful job. The last file amazed me how you fixed the phase problems of the first version while keeping the room and spatial relationships. I did have to balance right about 1.5 db to seem centered, but that's maybe the way they were standing?

Thanks for showing how it's done right.

[Earcatcher]

Originally Posted by radeng

Wonderful job. The last file amazed me how you fixed the phase problems of the first version while keeping the room and spatial relationships. I did have to balance right about 1.5 db to seem centered, but that's maybe the way they were standing?

Thanks for showing how it's done right.

Thanks. Yes, they were standing slightly to the left in this part of the performance, plus one of the singers on the right had catched a cold, so his voice was less powerful than normal. If I changed the balance to the virtual mid I got an imbalance in the room atmosphere, so I kept it this way, especially since the performers sat in a few different places during the concert. I didn't want to mess with their placement halfway.

I have to say that I am surprised myself about what can be done by some very simple changes to EQ and a little compression. Still, next time I plan to make some changes to mic placement as that will give me a better starting point for a good end result. I am going to convert the mic holding construction into a longer boom, so that I can move it forward a bit, reaching over the stairs. Blumlein is so spacious that you can easily move the mic closer without penalty in the roominess. In the worst case I can always add some reverb.

[Earcatcher]

Originally Posted by Yannick

Could you post a more detailed pic of the setup ?

I set up the array again, so I was able to take a detailed photo of it. Please find it attached.

[mljung]

Originally Posted by Earcatcher

Here is the version of the sample posted above in its final incarnation. Only levels were set inside the box (note: I edited the original files in Final Cut Pro), but EQ and compression were added in outboard while making a playout for the master. This was general EQ/comp, so not particularly for this excerpt, but for the entire performance. On request of the musicians I kept the stereo image a bit more narrow because they liked the blending effect better this way. I thought some more breath was needed, so opening up the top was my own choice. Please feel free to comment at the result, especially compared to the earlier files. After all I made this recording for my own education and hopefully for yours as well.

I still prefer V2 [and V1 for that matter]

To my ears V3 is strange "boxy" or "hollow" sounding, like some strange resonance was introduced [phase issues..?] - I don't think the narrow image is good either, to my ears it doesn't work

For me there's a big difference, am I alone on this - Is this really just different ears - please let us hear more opinions..!?

::
Mads

[The Listener]

Originally Posted by mljung

I still prefer V2 [and V1 for that matter]

To my ears V3 is strange "boxy" or "hollow" sounding, like some strange resonance was introduced [phase issues..?] - I don't think the narrow image is good either, to my ears it doesn't work

For me there's a big difference, am I alone on this - Is this really just different ears - please let us hear more opinions..!?

::
Mads

I join your opinion.

I don't like what happened to the very nice recording in this last version...

Do I hear some phase issues because of the narrowing of the image or is it the EQ, compression, I don't know... It sounds weird, while I really enjoyed the quality of the previous samples.

I also prefer no.2 or no.1

[Earcatcher]

Part two of my learning excercise in this venue can be found here: Harp and violin, learning in progress (with samples)

[The Listener]

Originally Posted by Earcatcher

Part two of my learning excercise in this venue can be found here: Harp and violin, learning in progress (with samples)

Nice new exercise - I liked the last variation.

BTW - did you check your last mix version we commented on? I don't think it's only a subjective judgement, something is not right in that last mix. Sounds like phase issues. It would be too bad to stay that way, since the recording is fine.

[Earcatcher]

Originally Posted by The Listener

Nice new exercise - I liked the last variation.

BTW - did you check your last mix version we commented on? I don't think it's only a subjective judgement, something is not right in that last mix. Sounds like phase issues. It would be too bad to stay that way, since the recording is fine.

No, I left it there. I posted several versions before that last one and only then someone (well, you) hastened to say he liked the earlier versions without having commented before. So I took it as good advice and moved on to implement the learnings into a new recording.

It's remarkable to see how many views a posted fragment can get and how few comments those views generate. No likes, nor dislikes. (Now ask about which mic is best for anything and you'll get tons of tainted opinions here.) My idea of a community is that you give as much as you take. I'm writing these learning reports as a result of that, hoping that others will benefit from my efforts as well.

Thanks for your comment anyway.

[The Listener]

Originally Posted by Earcatcher

No, I left it there. I posted several versions before that last one and only then someone (well, you) hastened to say he liked the earlier versions without having commented before. So I took it as good advice and moved on to implement the learnings into a new recording.

It's remarkable to see how many views a posted fragment can get and how few comments those views generate. No likes, nor dislikes. (Now ask about which mic is best for anything and you'll get tons of tainted opinions here.) My idea of a community is that you give as much as you take. I'm writing these learning reports as a result of that, hoping that others will benefit from my efforts as well.

Thanks for your comment anyway.

Well, sorry for not jumping immediately in.

It was not a hasty remark, though. I listened carefully to all your examples and I even tried to import that last one into my DAW and check what the hell is going on with it, but since it was in this itunes or whatever that is format I couldn't.
There was another similar comment before me and since I heard the same thing and thought it would be a pity to go unnoticed, I joined the discussion.

It was intended in a good spirit, not as bashing other people's (your) work.

If only two people hear that and think something is weird with that last version, fine, it could be two person's subjective perception, but it is not about personal aesthetics - it sounded to me like something is technically not correct in that last one, that's why I joined in.

I appreciate that you post your learning exercises.

[mljung]

Originally Posted by The Listener

There was another similar comment before me and since I heard the same thing and thought it would be a pity to go unnoticed, I joined the discussion...

Yes it was me that made the first comment - I truly think the less processed sound in V2 [and V1] sounds better, and was genuinely surprised that quite some preferred the 3rd one



::
Mads

[mathieujm]

+1
The third mix is very bizarre on headphones