The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Earthworks QTC40 - AB - spanish renaissance music
Old 2 weeks ago
  #1
Gear Maniac
 
Stradivariusz's Avatar
Earthworks QTC40 - AB - spanish renaissance music

I had an opportunity to record a short piece of a renaissance ensemble
The instruments used in this one were cornetto, pommer, renaissance fiddle, renaissance lute, castagnettes and some shakers.

Used just a pair ot QTC40 in AB.
46 cm, around 2 meters from the group (around - some closer some further), also around 2 meters high.

I used a bit of cleaning EQ, took off some boxyness around 300Hz, also spikes in the high freqs, and did a little boost to open the high end more +2dB around 10kHz. In the later mixing phase I tried to open the side a bit more so after bouncing the stereo file I used high end boost (again as little as 1,5 dB) just for the side (MS processing) what made the space feel slightly wider.

Except that and converting to mp3 no further processing.

Ensemble has also a low string bass - viola da gamba, but unlucky she was not here today...also there was a nasty airco in the hall, couldn't switch it off so some disturbing background noise...and no, it's not a noise from the Earthworks mics :D

Will be happy to hear some comments!

Greetings,

Strad
Attached Files

Kawaler .mp3 (2.33 MB, 446 views)

Old 1 week ago
  #2
Lives for gear
 
esldude's Avatar
I'm no pro, done a little recording using omni's in a church. I think your MS processing for more width was a good idea, but you might have been better with maybe a 70 to 100 cm spacing. Even more might work depending upon the space you were in. Then you probably would have gotten the width you wanted.

Sounds good to me otherwise. Interesting sounding instruments and you captured that well I think.
Old 1 week ago
  #3
Lives for gear
 
Earcatcher's Avatar
To my ear a little fullness is missing, resulting in a somewhat thin and distant sound. I'm not sure the M/S processing was such a good idea, as it is intensity based, while the recording method you used is time-difference based. In such a case M/S processing can lead to strange phase issues and consequential frequency shifts. At two meters distance and two meters high I would have expected some more dynamics with such a powerful playing. In breathing breaks the backround noise (which is a lot, BTW) seems to rise significantly. Are you sure you have not applied some sort of compression?

I always become quite blood thirsty when finding such a noisy HVAC in a room I am recording in. Whenever possible I try to eliminate it long before the concert by discussing it with the hall people and making sure they understand the importance of shutting it down during the music performance. This is not only for the recording, but also for the audience. In case of emergency I will find the mains plug and pull it. Hall owners should learn that it is extremely rude to their guests to leave such noisy machines on during a concert. Usually, when hall owners are reasonable, they will accept a good explanation and help you get the best recording you can under the circumstances.
Old 1 week ago
  #4
Gear Maniac
 
Stradivariusz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
I'm no pro, done a little recording using omni's in a church. I think your MS processing for more width was a good idea, but you might have been better with maybe a 70 to 100 cm spacing. Even more might work depending upon the space you were in. Then you probably would have gotten the width you wanted.

Sounds good to me otherwise. Interesting sounding instruments and you captured that well I think.
Thanks! I was trying not to overdo the stereo image since I have this kind of past As a start point wanted this time not to "use my ears" only, but I did some calculations and corrected the image and distance from the ensemble slightly. Still had only headphones - have to learn to use them better, at home having monitors the problems were more obvious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earcatcher View Post
To my ear a little fullness is missing, resulting in a somewhat thin and distant sound. I'm not sure the M/S processing was such a good idea, as it is intensity based, while the recording method you used is time-difference based. In such a case M/S processing can lead to strange phase issues and consequential frequency shifts. At two meters distance and two meters high I would have expected some more dynamics with such a powerful playing. In breathing breaks the backround noise (which is a lot, BTW) seems to rise significantly. Are you sure you have not applied some sort of compression?

I always become quite blood thirsty when finding such a noisy HVAC in a room I am recording in. Whenever possible I try to eliminate it long before the concert by discussing it with the hall people and making sure they understand the importance of shutting it down during the music performance. This is not only for the recording, but also for the audience. In case of emergency I will find the mains plug and pull it. Hall owners should learn that it is extremely rude to their guests to leave such noisy machines on during a concert. Usually, when hall owners are reasonable, they will accept a good explanation and help you get the best recording you can under the circumstances.
Thanks Earcatcher!

Few words of explanation. It was a short rehearsal time of the ensemble in the hall which had HVAC on, I was just a visitor ho is happy to use the opportunity to test some setups. I'm sure if it was a concert thy would allow to swich it off.

Most of the time I spend recording them from a larger distance, just to have an experiance of doing that. Calculations to get a good image even from 4/5 meters. Was fun to do.

At the end we decided to make a short sample for them. We did a quick balance, set up correction of the instruments, but really short. Actually I liked what I've heard, only couldn't get the fiddle right, but since they insisted to go on and it plays a middle voice, so more harmony than something really crucial I let it so. But as you see yourself, I'm also quite surprised that from two meters I didn't get more clear and crisp sound. Maby indeed through slightly too small distance between the mics instruments are somehow too glued together.

Actually I don't remember if I did some of the compression there. Didn't mean to, I've checked the file, compression was off, I tested it though - ratio 1.43, treshold -24dB, attack 20, very slow release - 600. But still think it was not bouced with compression.

I add hereby the raw file that you could compare.

All the best!

Strad
Attached Files

Kawaler raw.mp3 (2.26 MB, 230 views)

Old 1 week ago
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Earcatcher's Avatar
To be honest, I like the raw file better than the one you worked on: it is not as "restless" as the processed file, but has a more relaxed feeling to it. The backround noise of the processed file is a lot more apparent. The original seems to have a more even frequency representation too. Maybe give it another try with some simple HPF and only some careful Baxandall EQ? The raw file is a little less loud, but when you bring it up a bit in volume I'm sure it will be about the same image width as the processed one, so you could leave out that destructive step.

When you judge the stereo image on headphones it is extremely important to know that AB setups will give you a much more falsified stereo impression than M/S or ORTF would. This is because on headphones the two speakers are fully separated and thus the time differences work strongly. On speakers the sound from both will reach each ear with much less separation and in that case since there are no strength differences the stereo image will collapse mostly. Since the other methods are (mostly) strength difference based you keep many more of the stereo cues intact, although it is good to remember that headphones will always give more stereo separation than speakers. If a sound feels slightly distant on headphones you can be sure it will be too far away on speakers, so always place mics on the close side of correct when judging on headphones.
Old 1 week ago
  #6
Lives for gear
 
esldude's Avatar
I think the raw file is a good deal better myself. So I agree with ear catcher. His suggestions on monitoring with headphones are correct.
Old 1 week ago
  #7
Gear Maniac
 
Stradivariusz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earcatcher View Post
To be honest, I like the raw file better than the one you worked on: it is not as "restless" as the processed file, but has a more relaxed feeling to it. The backround noise of the processed file is a lot more apparent. The original seems to have a more even frequency representation too. Maybe give it another try with some simple HPF and only some careful Baxandall EQ? The raw file is a little less loud, but when you bring it up a bit in volume I'm sure it will be about the same image width as the processed one, so you could leave out that destructive step.

When you judge the stereo image on headphones it is extremely important to know that AB setups will give you a much more falsified stereo impression than M/S or ORTF would. This is because on headphones the two speakers are fully separated and thus the time differences work strongly. On speakers the sound from both will reach each ear with much less separation and in that case since there are no strength differences the stereo image will collapse mostly. Since the other methods are (mostly) strength difference based you keep many more of the stereo cues intact, although it is good to remember that headphones will always give more stereo separation than speakers. If a sound feels slightly distant on headphones you can be sure it will be too far away on speakers, so always place mics on the close side of correct when judging on headphones.
After listening today again to the raw file I expected to hear that
And I agree with your judgements. It's often very tempting to hear a change as something positive. Even while you compare it always wit original file it stays difficult to be objective. Anyway I'm quite happy to have learned some mixing tools. Now will work on a good taste and listening qualities to be able to judge better. Love this forum very much with a lot of kind people and valuable info.
Thanks a lot!
Old 1 week ago
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Earcatcher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stradivariusz View Post
After listening today again to the raw file I expected to hear that
And I agree with your judgements. It's often very tempting to hear a change as something positive. Even while you compare it always wit original file it stays difficult to be objective. Anyway I'm quite happy to have learned some mixing tools. Now will work on a good taste and listening qualities to be able to judge better. Love this forum very much with a lot of kind people and valuable info.
Thanks a lot!
I have a little gift with Spanish renaissance singing for you. Please check your PM.
Topic:
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
Forum Jump
Forum Jump