Comments on recording

[DoryDavis]

Sorry for the double post, I posted this in the playing category too. But I was looking for any constructive critique on how this sounds. AT large condenser 8" from bridge, Rode NT5 8" from neck/body join.
This is the first recording since I got the Rode. I'm thinking my rooms acoustics (typical bedroom/project studio) has lousy acoustics and is why it sounded best to me close miked. Of course the video is me playing along to what I recorded, so I could do the camera angles. Thanks for any comments, (especially from Doug) trying to get better.

[buzzardwhiskey]

Sounds very pleasant to me! I can hear the room, but don't know that it takes away from my enjoyment even a little.

[runamuck]

Nice playing.

I think overall it sounds pretty good although too bright and a bit brittle on the high end for my taste.

Jim McCarthy

[Doug Young]

Nice job! I think it looks and sounds really nice. Definitely a crisp, bright sound, but that may be what you want. Tommy's sound is often like that, and I'm guessing this is pretty accurate to the guitar. Nice stereo balance, and just a touch of reverb,

The next level of challenge might be actually record the audio live with the video. You may not be able to move around as much, but you should be able to get all the video angles and so on.

[DoryDavis]

Buzzardwhiskey, Jim and Doug, thanks for these comments. I'm glad you all enjoyed it to a good extent. Although Buzzardwhiskey didn't mention it, the high end does seem a bit prominent, after consideration to me too. I am one of the many on this board no doubt that played with no hearing protection, rock through the 70's and 80's, my high end hearing is shot, so I am probably overcompensating with what little eq I do.

Agreed Doug, these videos are better when the actual video and audio are the same take. Of course it is me playing, but not that video take(s). I come from a TV background and always want to overdo the video angles so need multiple takes to get that.

Anyway thanks for the comments, to get even this far, I learned from people here on the board (i.e. to get a small and large condensor and try that). The AT I've got has multiple pickup patterns, so I actually did try side mic technique with the AT on figure 8, copied the track, reversed polarity, but my intuition was that was making more of the room, and I felt it sounds better close miked traditionally. The experiments are just beginning however. Thanks again.

[tbeltrans]

Dory -

Nice arrangement (and performance)! Is that arrangement your own?

Anyway, listening through my Ultrabook speakers, it sounds fine. I suspect that one would want to listen through a variety of sound systems to really give a qualified answer. However, my perspective might have some value since I think many people watching your video would do so on whatever system they are using at the moment, including laptops and Ultrabooks.

Tony

[buzzardwhiskey]

Got home and re-listened on a pair of studio-quality headphones. You're probably right on the mark about why the brightness has come through. A bit more distance combined with a bit of room deadening would probably do the trick. Or you could probably keep the distance and room the same and use a ribbon mic.

[rick-slo]

Sounds good.
I assume a little reverb was added (sounds like it on the higher frequencies anyway). You can do a lot to warm up the sound just with the right reverb. Also you can cut the bit of string sizzle there is with a narrow band equalizer cut of a few decibels - usually centered somewhere in the upper 5000 to 7000 hertz range - experiment with a narrow band sweep boost to find the most offensive frequencies.

[DoryDavis]

Tony, thanks for the comment. I think you are right, the reason the video got some decent responses was just that, people were probably listening on Ultrabook like speakers. Which for better or worse are more forgiving. (I think better ha!)

Buzzard whiskey thanks for taking the time to listen again, through your high quality headphones. I've got Sennheiser HD280's I guess medium quality. Listening, yes now I can hear too much high end. Why I didn't before I don't know. As mentioned there is no question I've got high eq hearing loss, but I should be able to compensate for that, and stop hearing what I want to hear, but listen more intensely.
Rick, that reverb patch may have brought out the high end, and I used a mastering plugin that may have done the same. I'll try the eq sweep idea you mentioned on the next recording.
Thanks everyone for these responses.

[Ty Ford]

Dory,

Great playing. Nice arrangements.

The next song on your playlist doesn't have that overly hyped top end. Did you use any EQ in post on either of the two pieces?

Regards,

Ty Ford

[DoryDavis]

Thank you Ty for the nice comment!

I did use some EQ. I was looking in a book about home recording and it suggested adding a bit on the high end. I added a little, and didn't really hear any difference at the time so left it. Lesson learned.
This was also my first recording with my new Rode small condenser. Next time I am going to print a cd, and listen to it in different systems. And have friends listen too. Like I say lesson learned, and thanks again!

[Ty Ford]

I have friends who are clients (or clients who become friends). Some of them have HF hearing loss and they rely on me to know when there's too much or too little.

If you have time or inclination. Go back and render that file out without EQ and post it. We could then give you some feedback on the sound.

The first attempts at EQing frequently are boosts. That's OK sometimes, but start thinking of EQ as sound sculpting. You might arrive at your desired sound by a combination of subtractive and additive EQ. Take a little away here and you won't have to boost so much there.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Doug Young]

Dory, one suggestion I might make is to check out some of the tools that allow you to compare frequency distributions between 2 recordings - spectrum analyzers. One that I like is "HarBal". It draws some flack because it claims to be a sort of "automatic mastering" tool. I don't use any of that stuff, I just like the way it displays the overall frequency content of two files, and also allows you to make adjustments to one file relative to another (a reference file). I also never use the tool for actual EQing, but it's a great learning tool for understanding EQ and showing you how your recordings compare to some reference. If you can't hear some frequencies (and any of us who are above about 10 years old have some hearing loss), the tool can visually show you what's going on, so you can see, for example, if your recording has a big bump at 10Khz, or whatever. Depending on your DAW, you may already have something like this built in.