Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tech advice...recording equip?


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Rick Denney on February 17, 2003 at 11:40:05:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tech advice...recording equip? posted by Mary Ann on February 17, 2003 at 10:17:29:

My own recommendation was that my rig would do 98% of what a studio would do. If that 2% is what floats your boat, then 98% isn't good enough.

The problem with the AT-822 is stereo imaging, and that may be what you are hearing. The frequency response is not the problem, the 822 is pretty darn good there, even up into supersonic frequencies. But it is still a "binaural" stereo microphone, intended for location and field recordings, not for studio results.

If I wanted to record a group at a concert hall and get the best possible results, I'd use three microphones. I'd place two about 20 feet apart and about 12 feet up, and perhaps 12-20 feet in front of the ensemble and pointed at them. I'd put the third mike in the middle of the room, aimed straight up (if it has an echo) or pointed at the back wall (if it doesn't). I'd then record the three tracks separately, and mix them down to stereo with an even mix of the center mike in each channel, and its level set to control the quantity of room ambience in the final mix. Remember that editors and producers do all sorts of things in the final mix that didn't happen on stage, including revising the frequency response curve (which is their fancy way of saying they hot-rod the higher frequencies) to give it a bit more crispness. Some recording companies do more of this than others. I prefer the smoother, more natural sound myself.

I've never shopped at high price points, so I don't know what mikes are best up there, but you can spend as much as you want. I suspect, though, that you'd get a big percentage of that 2% by using any high-quality live-performance condenser mike. When I did this sort of thing, the Sennheiser microphone was our favorite for instrumentals.

You'll need a multi-track recording deck that records digitally onto a digital medium (most of them seem to record directly to big hard disks these days), and the fancier CoolEdit software will give you the ability to mix the three channels down to stereo.

But your problem is definitely not the fidelity of any of your components, unless you have bad cabling or somemthing like that (though loss of high-frequency response isn't the usual symptom of a bad cable, unless the cable is too long). Make SURE that you aren't 1.) using the automatic gain control on the recording deck, or 2.) recording at too high a level, or 3.) using any compression setting lower than the highest quality available on the deck. The first will kill your dynamics utterly, and the second will nail your frequency response and clarity, especially when you get to playback, and the third will compress your frequency response. This is the one pain of using a minidisc recorder--you have to fiddle with it too much to (each time) set it to manual input control and set the level.

I know that we've been through this before, so most of my response is for those who weren't in on the first conversation.

Another thing just occurred to me. You might try moving the microphone into your group a little closer. You may be mellowing it out too much with too much room effects. You'll need a way to add the room effects back in, either by recording them separately or simulating them digitally.

Rick "who wonders if much of commercial recording is added after the fact" Denney


Follow Ups: