The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Mics for orchestral film score recording? Condenser Microphones
Old 16th January 2019
  #91
Gear Maniac
 
elpillo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
No, there is no reason for it.
That would've been enough. I see absolutely no reason for the second sentence. Thanks, though...
Old 16th January 2019
  #92
Gear Maniac
 
elpillo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
The usual method of integrating spots is to use the main pair to establish primary stereo imagery, then pan the spot to the same position it occupies in the main pair image, and then balancing eq, delay, stereo reverb to give it some 'dimension' without calling attention to itself. M-S spots would afford even more flexibility re placement and width.
Thanks! Good to know the MS spot "trick"


Quote:
Originally Posted by pentagon View Post
Read up on how R. King does it. Yo-Yo isn't treated as a "soloist" in the ensemble. The two (omnis) are used as spots on his instrument.

Richard King: How To Record Acoustic Ensembles |
(scroll down to "on the spots" section about the mix of the spots to support the main tree he uses)
Thank you! Interesting read!
Old 16th January 2019
  #93
Spaced stereo spots require caution. The mic spacing need to be set properly for the desired image width, which will be less than the width from the main pair. Panning the spot pair inward after the fact risks comb filtering if the soloist won't hold still. It gets even more complicated if the soloist is to be off-center in the reproduced sound stage. Some Yo Yo Ma recordings by King exhibit another issue: LF standing waves can cause amplitude differences which cause the cello to fly across the stage. (Yo Yo Ma can do almost anything, but he cannot fly!) On the plus side, paired spots are not forced to look over or under a music stand; they can be placed on either side.

I consider M/S spots to be much safer than spaced pairs. They can be panned with impunity, and they avoid the problem of mono leakage. To prevent the spot contribution from sounding "pasted on", it's helpful to add some early reflections. These are almost always added artificially so their time signatures can be adjusted to suggest proscenium reflections. (The actual spot signal level may be treated as just another reflection.) I time-delay all my spots, but I do not time-align them; I prefer that they land behind the main pair signal in time, invoking the Haas effect.

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording
Old 16th January 2019
  #94
Hi David,

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Rick View Post
Spaced stereo spots require caution. The mic spacing need to be set properly for the desired image width, which will be less than the width from the main pair.
I do not understand what you mean - what image width are you talking about when placing a spaced stereo spot in front of a clarinet? Changing the spacing of the spotmics is a great tool, but to be honest they usually are around 20 - 30 cm wide, unless it is a piano or something similar. There is a fundamental difference between setting up a main microphone system or using a spaced spot.


Quote:
Originally Posted by David Rick View Post
Panning the spot pair inward after the fact risks comb filtering if the soloist won't hold still.
That's why you should never pan a spaced stereo spot. If the soloist won't hold still, the resulting changes of sound on a mono spot are much more annoying than the movement in the sound stage, at least IMHO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Rick View Post
It gets even more complicated if the soloist is to be off-center in the reproduced sound stage. Some Yo Yo Ma recordings by King exhibit another issue: LF standing waves can cause amplitude differences which cause the cello to fly across the stage. (Yo Yo Ma can do almost anything, but he cannot fly!) On the plus side, paired spots are not forced to look over or under a music stand; they can be placed on either side.
I honestly do not think this has anything to do with standing waves but simply the fact that the soloist is moving/projecting significantly more towards one microphone. As said above, this is not cool, of course, but still preferrable than what you will get if using a mono or mono-based (such as M/S) spot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Rick View Post
I consider M/S spots to be much safer than spaced pairs. They can be panned with impunity, and they avoid the problem of mono leakage.
With a spaced stereo spot, you do not pan by panning. You keep the signals hard L and R, and move the faders accordingly. I never ever had a problem with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Rick View Post
To prevent the spot contribution from sounding "pasted on", it's helpful to add some early reflections. These are almost always added artificially so their time signatures can be adjusted to suggest proscenium reflections. (The actual spot signal level may be treated as just another reflection.) I time-delay all my spots, but I do not time-align them; I prefer that they land behind the main pair signal in time, invoking the Haas effect.
For me, one of the reasons for using a spaced stereo spot is that it will blend so much better with the main mics, i.e. avoiding it to be sounding "pasted on". Needing to add early reflections, at least in my experience, is the result of mono-based spots.

I am not saying that using an M/S as a spot does not work well, I just do not share the experiences you had with spaced stereo spots.

Best,
Dirk
Old 16th January 2019
  #95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
My post responded to a poster citing a janitor who suggested the string quartet be miced with a main pair and then two spot mics on each instrument. This same janitor then supposedly suggested blurring the stereo picture by panning the left side to the right and the right side to the left.

A janitor might suggest that.
It is not quite the same, but let's not forget that Volker Straus et al. always used a stereo spaced spot pair with a main pair for string quartets.

All the best,

Dirk
Old 16th January 2019
  #96
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtf View Post
...let's not forget that Volker Straus et al. always used a stereo spaced spot pair with a main pair for string quartets
...while i cannot remember that jürg jeckiln used stereo spots unless an instrument was very large, dispersion highly asymmetrical or there was an insane amount of movement from a musician - and then it was m/s, not spaced mics (in fact, i even had to rewire patchbays to accept/de-/matrix m/s before feeding into the control room...)


Quote:
Originally Posted by dtf View Post
...That's why you should never pan a spaced stereo spot. If the soloist won't hold still, the resulting changes of sound on a mono spot are much more annoying than the movement in the sound stage, at least IMHO...
absolutely not my experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtf View Post
...the fact that the soloist is moving/projecting significantly more towards one microphone. As said above, this is not cool, of course, but still preferrable than what you will get if using a mono or mono-based (such as M/S) spot.
again very different taste.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtf View Post
With a spaced stereo spot, you do not pan by panning. You keep the signals hard L and R, and move the faders accordingly. I never ever had a problem with that.
this seems entirely wrong: where does the instrument then appear in your mix if you have it on a stereo spot say on the far left of an ensemble?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtf View Post
For me, one of the reasons for using a spaced stereo spot is that it will blend so much better with the main mics, i.e. avoiding it to be sounding "pasted on". Needing to add early reflections, at least in my experience, is the result of mono-based spots.
two spot mics will always pick up more early reflections than just one...

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtf View Post
I am not saying that using an M/S as a spot does not work well, I just do not share the experiences you had with spaced stereo spots.
vice versa.

Last edited by deedeeyeah; 16th January 2019 at 03:02 PM.. Reason: typo
Old 16th January 2019
  #97
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtf View Post
That's why you should never pan a spaced stereo spot. If the soloist won't hold still, the resulting changes of sound on a mono spot are much more annoying than the movement in the sound stage, at least IMHO.

With a spaced stereo spot, you do not pan by panning. You keep the signals hard L and R, and move the faders accordingly. I never ever had a problem with that.
Dirk
To me these two statements seem contradictory. The first implies you are using spaced spots mainly to have a wider coverage in case the musician moves.

The second would mean, if the musician is off-centre, that one spot is much lower in volume. So, here the stereo spot does not offer wider coverage anymore ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtf View Post
For me, one of the reasons for using a spaced stereo spot is that it will blend so much better with the main mics, i.e. avoiding it to be sounding "pasted on". Needing to add early reflections, at least in my experience, is the result of mono-based spots.
Dirk
I agree stereo spots blend better. Mainly because they pick up more ambient cues. I disagree a stereo spaced spot sounds less pasted on. That could be because I almost never use spaced main arrays.

Needing to add early reflections has got nothing to do with whichever spot techniques you are using. It has to do with balance inside the ensemble, and positioning ref. the main pair, as well as room acoustics.

As a side note, I recently fooled my colleague when listening to a mono spot. He thought there was a faulty routing, or a bug in the mixer. He did not realise I also engaged the send to a convolving early reflection reverb. In this case, the mono spot sounded like a full blown stereo recording
Old 16th January 2019
  #98
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
...while i cannot remember that jürg jeckiln used stereo spots unless an instrument was very large, dispersion highly asymmetrical or there was an insane amount of movement from a musician - and then it was m/s, not spaced mics (in fact, i even had to rewire patchbays to accept/de-/matrix m/s before feeding into the control room...)
Let's say I would not count Jecklin in "Volker Straus et al.".

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
this seems entirely wrong: where does the instrument then appear in your mix if you have it on a stereo spot say on the far left of an ensemble?!
This comment gives me the impression you never used a spaced stereo spot and, therefore, did not understand what I meant. Keeping the signals hard L and R means you are basically turning a balance pot when moving the faders. Of course, you want the instrument to be left in the ensemble, so you lowever the level of right channel. Linking the faders is really helpful for this, so you keep the relationship of levels whilst making the spot louder/softer.

Best,
Dirk
Old 16th January 2019
  #99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
To me these two statements seem contradictory. The first implies you are using spaced spots mainly to have a wider coverage in case the musician moves.

The second would mean, if the musician is off-centre, that one spot is much lower in volume. So, here the stereo spot does not offer wider coverage anymore ?
I think there is some confusion - I never said that the main reason for using a spaced stereo spot is a wider coverage in case the musician moves. That, for me, is actually the least important reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
I agree stereo spots blend better. Mainly because they pick up more ambient cues. I disagree a stereo spaced spot sounds less pasted on. That could be because I almost never use spaced main arrays.
That is an interesting comment, as I never use coincident main mics, or at least there is always a spaced component present as well. I find it a convincing idea that the type of main mic dictates the type of spots that work best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
Needing to add early reflections has got nothing to do with whichever spot techniques you are using. It has to do with balance inside the ensemble, and positioning ref. the main pair, as well as room acoustics.
Are we talking about the same thing? David mentioned he adds artificial early reflections to his M/S spots, and that is what I was referring to.

Best,
Dirk
Old 16th January 2019
  #100
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtf View Post
Are we talking about the same thing? David mentioned he adds artificial early reflections to his M/S spots, and that is what I was referring to.

Dirk
I think we are talking about not quite the same thing. The thing is that obviously a mono spot sounds pasted on in a main AB mic context, because the mono spot is panned with a panpot, thus relying on level differences only Did you ever try using the Pyramix proprietary pan thingy I do not have because I refuse to upgrade further because of too many bugs remaining, which is based on time differences (the exact name escapes me ) ?

I have a problem with many spotted recordings, because the spots sound too dry. Combined with the fact that in many recordings the soloist is actually too loud, or the group spots are too high up in the mix, this gives an obvious painted-on quality to the recording. Ime one can really "hide" a spot using a reverb with mainly early reflections and (almost) no diffuse part (depending on how much too loud the spot will be ), and of course, time alignment.

Delaying the spots behind the main pair is a no-go for me, as the comb filtering issue remains when doing level automation.
Old 16th January 2019
  #101
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtf View Post
Let's say I would not count Jecklin in "Volker Straus et al.".



This comment gives me the impression you never used a spaced stereo spot and, therefore, did not understand what I meant. Keeping the signals hard L and R means you are basically turning a balance pot when moving the faders. Of course, you want the instrument to be left in the ensemble, so you lowever the level of right channel. Linking the faders is really helpful for this, so you keep the relationship of levels whilst making the spot louder/softer.

Best,
Dirk
no need for dissing jj and you're your making some wrong assuptions!

anyway, i cannot see any advantage in sound or handling by using spaced spots, especially not when dealing with very large channel counts: any technique that requires additional work is a no-go.

it doesn't matter much whether you're doing levels via panning or fader riding (unless you're using some awkward pan laws for mixing).

also, for surround and for alignment there are clear disadvantages of using spaced spots...

but hey, everyone to find his/her own way to get happy: mine is NOT to use spaced spots but mono, m/s or x/y spots, dynamics and efx (plus my desks allows for adjustment of stereo width, balance and pan of stereo channel. and when used in surround, pan on mono channels goes far beyond simple level steering ).

Last edited by deedeeyeah; 16th January 2019 at 04:49 PM.. Reason: typo
Old 16th January 2019
  #102
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
no need for dissing jj and you're your making some wrong assuptions!
Ok, I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I was not dissing Jecklin. I actually learned a lot from reading his book as a student. What I meant to say was that Straus worked completely different than Jecklin, so I did not understand how you jumped from my comment to mentioning him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
anyway, i cannot see any advantage in sound or handling by using spaced spots, especially not when dealing with very large channel counts: any technique that requires additional work is a no-go.
I actually agree, when there is a high channel count, at a certain point it does not make any sense whatsoever to use stereo spots of any sort. However, the premise that a technique is a no-go just because it costs extra work really defies practical experience.

You might not see any advantage in sound, and that is fine, but many colleagues disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
it doesn't matter much whether you're doing levels via panning or fader riding (unless you're using some awkward pan laws for mixing).
Of course it matters, because as soon as you pan the signals inwards your stereo field collapses. I did have good experiences with keeping e.g. the left channel hard left and panning the right channel to center (for example with double choirs in oratoria).

I do not understand what pan laws have to do with anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
also, for surround and for alignment there are clear disadvantages of using spaced spots...
For time alignment, I would agree. As you might expect, I usually do not do that anyway.

As for Surround, obviously a pair often defies the purpose: a stereo spot is a stereo spot because it is designed for 2-channel "stereo". In Surround, you have the advantage of the front speakers being closer to each other and enabling you to pan between e.g. only left and center, so all the problems with 2-ch stereo are not there to begin with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
but hey, everyone to find his/her own way to get happy: mine is NOT to use spaced spots but mono, m/s or x/y spots, dynamics and efx (plus my desks allows for adjustment of stereo width, balance and pan of stereo channel. and when used in surround, pan on mono channels goes far beyond simple level steering ).
That is great. I am not here to vehemently defend spaced stereo spots. I merely responded to David's claims about their usage, which I disagreed with.

Best,
Dirk
Old 16th January 2019
  #103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
I think we are talking about not quite the same thing. The thing is that obviously a mono spot sounds pasted on in a main AB mic context, because the mono spot is panned with a panpot, thus relying on level differences only Did you ever try using the Pyramix proprietary pan thingy I do not have because I refuse to upgrade further because of too many bugs remaining, which is based on time differences (the exact name escapes me ) ?
Do you mean Pan Noir? Still have not tried it myself, but also curious...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
I have a problem with many spotted recordings, because the spots sound too dry. Combined with the fact that in many recordings the soloist is actually too loud, or the group spots are too high up in the mix, this gives an obvious painted-on quality to the recording. Ime one can really "hide" a spot using a reverb with mainly early reflections and (almost) no diffuse part (depending on how much too loud the spot will be ), and of course, time alignment.
I agree, though I often work exactly opposite as in that I use mainly the reverb tail on spots. I almost often dislike the conflict of the natural early reflections and the artificially added ones (reflections are the first things I switch of on reverbs...).

Do you find that your way of working requires you to isolate the spotted instrument or group as much as possible? I remember you work a lot with figure-of-eight mics, so perhaps you achieve this with placement?
Old 16th January 2019
  #104
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtf View Post
Do you mean Pan Noir? Still have not tried it myself, but also curious...
Indeed, Pan Noir !
I did not test either, because I do not like spaced techniques, so pan noir makes no sense to me

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtf View Post
I agree, though I often work exactly opposite as in that I use mainly the reverb tail on spots. I almost often dislike the conflict of the natural early reflections and the artificially added ones (reflections are the first things I switch of on reverbs...).

Do you find that your way of working requires you to isolate the spotted instrument or group as much as possible? I remember you work a lot with figure-of-eight mics, so perhaps you achieve this with placement?
That is why I use convolution reverb, and in many cases the IR has been made in the hall where the recording is being made. But even when they are different halls, finding something compatible is not so hard.

Indeed I get more isolation with the fig8 spots. Probably this helps in that respect too.
Old 16th January 2019
  #105
Gear Head
 

It has been a while since I have read the Richard King interview, but I seem to recall that his reason for stereo spotting the cello had more to do with preserving the panoramic location of the instruments to the right and left of the cello as he raised the spot mic than anything else. I’m sure he determined that using omni mics for the cello gives the best representation of the instrument, stereo miking being a way to mitigate the bleed issues.
Old 16th January 2019
  #106
I see cello concertos as a particular case in which Mr. King's two mic technique makes a lot of sense. But I don't think I would use paired spots on each member of a string quartet. Leakage would surely lead to many conflicting localization cues. The truth is, much of my small ensemble work uses no spots at all.
Old 17th January 2019
  #107
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by jheath View Post
It has been a while since I have read the Richard King interview, but I seem to recall that his reason for stereo spotting the cello had more to do with preserving the panoramic location of the instruments to the right and left of the cello as he raised the spot mic than anything else. I’m sure he determined that using omni mics for the cello gives the best representation of the instrument, stereo miking being a way to mitigate the bleed issues.
I think Richard King is using his main pair and spots less like one might in a classical orchestral concert or Abbey Road session, and perhaps more like a typical rock recording studio might approach drum overheads and room mics ?

If King is going to raise the level of spots markedly, then a mono spot would tend to collapse spill from adjoining instruments into a 'mono clump of wash overlaid upon the spot instrument' .....not ideal ! However a fig 8 might have been a better spot mic, as it would null out the neighbour contributions quite effectively ?

However he's alighted upon spaced omnis, and clearly they work for his purposes.
In the 2nd linked studio video below you can clearly see stereo spot miking on the fiddle also, plus a low gobo screen.
The.final NPR Tiny Desk link shows different miking altogether....big reliance on hyper cardioid shotguns there.

Here's the band in action: >>> YouTube
YouTube
YouTube
Old 17th January 2019
  #108
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post

Here's the band in action: >>> YouTube

mono
Old 20th January 2019
  #109
Quote:
Originally Posted by pentagon View Post
Film scoring we put people in booths (and mic accordingly)

Film scoring we'll split orchestra (and mic accordingly) -- for instance strings/winds, brass, and perc separately. There is no sacredness to the capture. We do whatever works. That also goes for seating positions, putting people in galleries, picking up soloist on different days in different studios, etc. It is session work. Tracking the strings on one day and tracking the brass the next in a different studio (because we like the sound of each of those groups from different rooms) happens. We also do multiple passes (which means there's also a doubling/tripling of all the room mics in the mix.)

Film scoring we don't worry about visibility.

I was recording a famous classical violinist for a film score (featured soloist) with orchestra who was tracking for a film score for the first time. He has done multiple albums and was having a great time doing the film score but was telling me the experience was completely different from his albums: my concern for his placement in relation to the orchestra, surrounds, the number of mics/types I had on him (and sometimes with baffles)


And btw, to whomever wrote earlier about this, we do have pickup dates (if there's budget.) That corrects for picture edit changes, previously unapproved cues or scenes that have been in limbo, even re-thinking how a cue was recorded the first time. There are a lot of "clients" for a film score: composer, director(s) and producer(s). Even focus group screenings can change things (so in essence, suburban moms.)

And timelines are much shorter -- scoring, mixing, and delivering to the film dub stage happens in days. Not multiple weeks or months. I think some here have a grandiose idea of how much film producers budget for music (which keeps getting smaller.) And how much time is given (music and VFX/colour grading are the ones that get the shaft in post-production schedules)

As for number of mics, the most I've seen used is one per desk for strings though it is common (and I do it too) for a mic per woodwind player. But strings are almost always by section spots (vln1, vln2, etc.) The one per desk was for a special use where the recording was going to be manipulated -- not the least bit for a true orchestral sound. Horns often get mic'd front and back. Other brass usually per section. Harp depends on placement but two isn't unheard of. Piano, multiple mics -- could be all on its own pass on the main stage or in a booth too. Percussion is a free-for-all on mics
Great post as always, Pentagon, thanks for the insight. Regarding recording different sections at different studios, would it be safe to assume you don't worry about front to back placement (i.e., the brass sounds farther back than the strings) in a final film score mix? From what I can gather listening to film score soundtracks, the percussion (drums in particular) seem to be way further up in the mix, not mixed to sound like it's "back in the hall". Brass too, up front and in your face more, even the John William's scores. Am I right about this?

BTW, famous classical violinist - Schindler's List?
Old 20th January 2019
  #110
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by session bass View Post
Great post as always, Pentagon, thanks for the insight. Regarding recording different sections at different studios, would it be safe to assume you don't worry about front to back placement (i.e., the brass sounds farther back than the strings) in a final film score mix? From what I can gather listening to film score soundtracks, the percussion (drums in particular) seem to be way further up in the mix, not mixed to sound like it's "back in the hall". Brass too, up front and in your face more, even the John William's scores. Am I right about this?

BTW, famous classical violinist - Schindler's List?
John William's scores are recorded full orchestra/balanced. (there is no split orchestra.) So what you are hearing is the sound of Abbey Road (for the most part until recently) and the work of the mix/record engineer and JW's arrangement/conducting to push the brass when needed. If you hear David Newman conducting for JW live, you'll hear the same push for brass.

But no, in general, there is no worry about front to back placement. Especially for percussion (which is often handled completely separately as a different tracking session if there is even one -- much of today's percussion in scores is samples; composers and directors get enamoured with a particular sound and any variation of that generally is not as well liked.) As for other sections (like brass), depending on the score a section can be treated as a featured "soloist" -- so up front. Or if it is distant call, much further back than they would be on a scoring stage. The manipulation suits what the movie needs.

(and, no, not Perlman)
Old 20th January 2019
  #111
Quote:
Originally Posted by pentagon View Post
John William's scores are recorded full orchestra/balanced. (there is no split orchestra.) So what you are hearing is the sound of Abbey Road (for the most part until recently) and the work of the mix/record engineer and JW's arrangement/conducting to push the brass when needed. If you hear David Newman conducting for JW live, you'll hear the same push for brass.

But no, in general, there is no worry about front to back placement. Especially for percussion (which is often handled completely separately as a different tracking session if there is even one -- much of today's percussion in scores is samples; composers and directors get enamoured with a particular sound and any variation of that generally is not as well liked.) As for other sections (like brass), depending on the score a section can be treated as a featured "soloist" -- so up front. Or if it is distant call, much further back than they would be on a scoring stage. The manipulation suits what the movie needs.

(and, no, not Perlman)
As always Pentagon, your insight and comments are invaluable. Thank you!
Old 22nd January 2019
  #112
Gear Nut
 
two|twelve's Avatar
 

Fantastic thread gentlemen, thanks to all who contributed!
Old 1 week ago
  #113
Quote:
Originally Posted by pentagon View Post
But no, in general, there is no worry about front to back placement. Especially for percussion (which is often handled completely separately as a different tracking session if there is even one -- much of today's percussion in scores is samples; composers and directors get enamoured with a particular sound and any variation of that generally is not as well liked.) As for other sections (like brass), depending on the score a section can be treated as a featured "soloist" -- so up front. Or if it is dist ant call, much further back than they would be on a scoring stage. The manipulation suits what the movie needs.
Would it be a correct assumption then that a film score reverb setup might include a near, mid, far, and very far reverb set on 4 different auxes respectively, then each orchestral section bus (WW, brass, perc, strings) would also have access to all four verbs through 4 aux send busses, automating various mute switches on the aux sends to choose the one you want? In other words, 4 different verbs (near, mid, far, very far) that ARE NOT always assigned to their typical orchestral sections relative to their placement in a hall (i.e., strings always use the near verb, brass always uses the far verb)? You choose the appropriate verb (near, mid, far, very far) through the 4 verb aux send buses on each orchestral section bus, automating mutes on them to choose the proper verb relative to the scene (more powerful brass using a near verb for example)? I know you're out of town and very busy so whenever you get a free moment, no hurry. Just very curious about this. Thank you Pentagon

Last edited by session bass; 1 week ago at 03:16 PM..
Old 1 week ago
  #114
Lives for gear
 

Quick reply: there are separate reverbs for every printed stem to be delivered to the dub stage. So if one stem is “high percussion”, it has its own set of reverb(s) separate from other stems like “strings.” This is because the stems summed should sound exactly like the full mix for the re-recording mixer. You cannot “share” reverbs between different stems that will be delivered. (Once upon a time with hardware reverbs, we would solo and print each stem to be able to use the same outboard reverbs but that was both a slow process and inaccurate)

Yes, multiple reverbs for one stem could be used. But I wouldn’t set up static reverbs for every group. It would be a massive waste of resources. The reverbs set up would be dependent on the sound of the source material and what I intend to do with it. A guitar tracked in a dry room that will always be the featured lead would probably have one reverb to set it up for LCR. Strings recorded in different rooms (from very wet at AIR studios to overly dry at East/West) might have four reverbs. Some only for early reflections, some only for reverb tail. Sometimes the point is to blend all these string groups to sound like one (string pad with detail) while other times the AIR orchestra would be the A group for big wide shots and the East/West would be the B group for more intimate interior close scenes and so the reverb treatment isn’t to blend the two but to be distinctively different.

It’s what the picture, director want and the composer intended.
Old 6 days ago
  #115
Quote:
Originally Posted by pentagon View Post
Quick reply: there are separate reverbs for every printed stem to be delivered to the dub stage. So if one stem is “high percussion”, it has its own set of reverb(s) separate from other stems like “strings.” This is because the stems summed should sound exactly like the full mix for the re-recording mixer. You cannot “share” reverbs between different stems that will be delivered. (Once upon a time with hardware reverbs, we would solo and print each stem to be able to use the same outboard reverbs but that was both a slow process and inaccurate)

Yes, multiple reverbs for one stem could be used. But I wouldn’t set up static reverbs for every group. It would be a massive waste of resources. The reverbs set up would be dependent on the sound of the source material and what I intend to do with it. A guitar tracked in a dry room that will always be the featured lead would probably have one reverb to set it up for LCR. Strings recorded in different rooms (from very wet at AIR studios to overly dry at East/West) might have four reverbs. Some only for early reflections, some only for reverb tail. Sometimes the point is to blend all these string groups to sound like one (string pad with detail) while other times the AIR orchestra would be the A group for big wide shots and the East/West would be the B group for more intimate interior close scenes and so the reverb treatment isn’t to blend the two but to be distinctively different.

It’s what the picture, director want and the composer intended.
Fascinating. Completely different from some other mixing approaches I've heard and yet from listening to soundtracks my ears are telling me that's EXACTLY how it's done. Makes total sense, the scene dictates the verb used and on which instruments. Great and informative response as always, Pentagon, thank you
Old 4 days ago
  #116
Man this thread is a masterclass!
Old 3 days ago
  #117
Quote:
Originally Posted by king2070lplaya View Post
Man this thread is a masterclass!
Pentagon is brilliant. I've read every single one of his posts
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
rcartwright / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music and Location Recording
52
Ugur Dariveren / So much gear, so little time
2
devastat / Mastering forum
16

Forum Jump
Forum Jump