Recording in different rooms with a Zoom
3 Attachment(s)
TBMan mentioned having to record in an 8x8 room, which got me thinking about the impact of rooms on sound, and how having a small portable recorder lets us move around and experiment with different rooms and the effect they have. So I did a very quick experiment, recording a short clip (an Al Petteway segment, for Barry!) in 3 different rooms, using the Zoom H6 with internal mics. The rooms:
Here's the results, no major editing, I just tried to match levels and added a touch of reverb. Note that because I was being so haphazard about the process - just finding a place I could lay the recorder near the guitar, mic placement varies quite a bit, which plays another role in differences, besides the sound of the room. In sequence: laundry room, living room, treated studio: The photos are out of order (studio first, then laundry room, then living room) |
Nice comparison Doug!
I can hear a dramatic difference between the laundry room and the living room, then a more subtle difference between the living room and studio. The studio was the most well rounded recording. The Zoom H6 does a nice job. |
Ha ! love the way the cat appears to be watching the mouse.
I see the M7 is on the "Large Hall" do you like that for solo acoustic ? |
Take advantage of cardioid mike directionality having mikes closer to but pointing away from one of the room's shorter walls (rectangular room shape).
|
To be honest, Doug, I'd be happy with any of those results.
The studio recording sounds best, with a wider range of frequencies, but only because your hearing all 3 together. The laundry room sounds good, but then the living room sounds warmer and more together, but the studio has the living room warmth with more range (if that makes sense). I always record with my Zoom H5 in my daughters room, with duvets hanging, acting as homemade room treatment, but I think I'll do a tour of the house and do a comparison recording. Thanks Doug. |
Doug, I remember years ago your telling me about a conversation with Joe Weed http://www.joeweed.com/studiopages/highlandstudio.htm where he said recording quality was something like 90 percent performance, 5 percent mic placement, 3 percent instrument, and 2 percent everything else (mic choice, preamps, a/d converters, etc. etc.)
The trouble with your demos is that the 90 percent is so darned good the rest doesn't matter, at least as long as the mics are pointed at the guitar. Fran |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I go back and forth on the Bricasti settings. The Large Hall can be a bit too much for some things, but I do use it a lot, mixed in low. I have that on my"speed dial" knobs, along with a couple of ambiance settings, Studio B, and D, and "Guitar Room" - which is probably just that I'm suggestable, but it does seem to sound nice on guitar. |
Quote:
|
For presence, clarity and detail the studio wins big time for me. I'm guessing the cat's in the same camp.
|
Great post. It concerns me though that I can hear practically zero difference between all three recordings with a set of AKG MKii headphones on. I'm 48 years old and have definitely noticed my hearing degrade in the last 3 or 4 years.
They all sound good to me. |
All sound pretty similar. However that is not too surprising with x-y miking. Also the closer the miking to the guitar the less difference to be expected.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
deleterious effects of certain room reflection is less apparent. |
Quote:
in any case, this wasn't intended to pick a winner (I don't think it's much of a contest - I'll take my treated room any day). I just thought it'd be interesting to demo the impact of different room acoustics as well as see how a simple recorder with cheap built-in mics worked in non-optimal environments. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum