New to recording, need advice on current setup

[TBman]

Originally Posted by islandguitar

Hi Barry.....I only have one pic right now that doesn't show a lot....I have my stuff currently set up and I'll take a couple of pics tomorrow and post them.
Thanks!

Thanks Fred!

[islandguitar]

Originally Posted by islandguitar

Hi Barry.....I only have one pic right now that doesn't show a lot....I have my stuff currently set up and I'll take a couple of pics tomorrow and post them.
Thanks!

Here's a pic of my little set-up with the panels in place in our dining room. This is an older house (1907) with higher ceilings....also, behind me is a "butt out" or small alcove, so no flat surface. Not sure how much that influences things overall. The mics are positioned about 1/3 of the way into the room, I'd guess.
The panels are from Acoustimac and made from their "Eco Friendly" material which is recyclable and, according to them, the highest performing over Corning or Rockwool material. They measure 4x2' by 4" deep. The frames also came from the same company. I've attached them together with large Velcro tape both on top and in the back about half way down. It makes them very sturdy and solid when bound together. Breaking the set up down is fast, the panels go in our basement which is nice and dry.
[IMG][/IMG]

[DukeX]

Originally Posted by Mbroady

There was a recent thread about good sounding rooms with cheep mics vs great equipment and a not so good sounding room. The consensus was a better sounding room is a priority.

Yes, room treatment is critical. Its importance has been preached for at least as long as I have been recording (1996). And it's not just for recording. It also applies to critical listening/mixing. Hard to make good mixing decisions in a poor room.

But the general experienced consensus that I have encountered over the past 25 years (dozens of forums, hundreds of professionals, thousands of posts) is that the microphone is the most important link in the recording chain. I agree with it. Buy the best mics you can afford (just like guitars). For example, check out the mics the most experienced recordists on this forum own.

While a beginner doesn't need Schoeps, Neumann, Josephson, or Gefell, spending an extra $50 each for better mics is a great and wise investment IMO, especially in the low-end/inexpensive price range. Heck, you can find the excellent Shure KSM 137 (that islandguitar uses) used for about $150 each. Also, it often saves you money in the long run because as the old recording mantra goes: "Buy cheap, buy twice."

[TBman]

Originally Posted by islandguitar

Here's a pic of my little set-up with the panels in place in our dining room. This is an older house (1907) with higher ceilings....also, behind me is a "butt out" or small alcove, so no flat surface. Not sure how much that influences things overall. The mics are positioned about 1/3 of the way into the room, I'd guess.
The panels are from Acoustimac and made from their "Eco Friendly" material which is recyclable and, according to them, the highest performing over Corning or Rockwool material. They measure 4x2' by 4" deep. The frames also came from the same company. I've attached them together with large Velcro tape both on top and in the back about half way down. It makes them very sturdy and solid when bound together. Breaking the set up down is fast, the panels go in our basement which is nice and dry.
[IMG][/IMG]

Thanks Fred!

[Mbroady]

Originally Posted by DukeX

Yes, room treatment is critical. Its importance has been preached for at least as long as I have been recording (1996). And it's not just for recording. It also applies to critical listening/mixing. Hard to make good mixing decisions in a poor room.

But the general experienced consensus that I have encountered over the past 25 years (dozens of forums, hundreds of professionals, thousands of posts) is that the microphone is the most important link in the recording chain. I agree with it. Buy the best mics you can afford (just like guitars). For example, check out the mics the most experienced recordists on this forum own.

While a beginner doesn't need Schoeps, Neumann, Josephson, or Gefell, spending an extra $50 each for better mics is a great and wise investment IMO, especially in the low-end/inexpensive price range. Heck, you can find the excellent Shure KSM 137 (that islandguitar uses) used for about $150 each. Also, it often saves you money in the long run because as the old recording mantra goes: "Buy cheap, buy twice."

I agree that mics are (one of) the most important link(s) in the recording chain, but do the professionals consider “the room” as part of the chain? If an experienced engineer has no choice but to record in an untreated room, would they choose a high end condenser or perhaps a less expensive dynamic mic such as an 57/58 (though a SM7 might be better)? Much can be done with mic placement but it does have its limits.

[DukeX]

Originally Posted by Mbroady

I agree that mics are (one of) the most important link(s) in the recording chain, but do the professionals consider “the room” as part of the chain? If an experienced engineer has no choice but to record in an untreated room, would they choose a high end condenser or perhaps a less expensive dynamic mic such as an 57/58 (though a SM7 might be better)? Much can be done with mic placement but it does have its limits.

To answer your first question: no, the room is generally not considered part of the recording chain, nor is the instrument or the player. The recording chain captures the sound that the player, instrument, room make. The essential recording chain is the mic => mic preamp => ADC. Being the first (the ears) the mic is most important.

To answer your second question: an experienced engineer will use whatever equipment and techniques are available, and will often invent new ones on the fly. These folks are creative and truly amazing. So yes, if an SM57 (or a mic made out of an old telephone or speaker) gives the sound the engineer/artist is looking for, that mic will be used.

Let's not forget he's playing a $1,700 guitar. Probably not poor or broke. Probably can afford slightly more expensive but better mics as well as some room treatment. Unlikely that it's an either/or dichotomy.

Now let me ask you a question. All other things being equal, would you rather have an AT2021 for $100 or an AT4041 for $150?

There is, of course, no correct answer. But I know which I would choose.

[Mbroady]

Originally Posted by DukeX

To answer your first question: no, the room is generally not considered part of the recording chain, nor is the instrument or the player. The recording chain captures the sound that the player, instrument, room make. The essential recording chain is the mic => mic preamp => ADC. Being the first (the ears) the mic is most important.

To answer your second question: an experienced engineer will use whatever equipment and techniques are available, and will often invent new ones on the fly. These folks are creative and truly amazing. So yes, if an SM57 (or a mic made out of an old telephone or speaker) gives the sound the engineer/artist is looking for, that mic will be used.

Let's not forget he's playing a $1,700 guitar. Probably not poor or broke. Probably can afford slightly more expensive but better mics as well as some room treatment. Unlikely that it's an either/or dichotomy.

Now let me ask you a question. All other things being equal, would you rather have an AT2021 for $100 or an AT4041 for $150?

There is, of course, no correct answer. But I know which I would choose.

Absolutely, if you are comparing apples to apples (LDC to LDC) the extra cash can make a difference in quality. But more expensive does not mean better for a particular application/recording environment.

[jim1960]

The room isn't part of the recording chain but the room has to be a consideration when choosing a recording chain. If the room is bad, the choices made would need to minimize the contribution of the bad room.

I agree that the microphone is the most important part of the recording chain. In a great room, you can choose the mic solely on what the guitar sounds like on the other end. In a bad room, mic selection and mic placement is critical. You probably want to stay away from anything with a figure-8 or omni pattern because that allows the room to influence the sound more than a cardioid or hypercardioid mic pattern would. You'll likely want to mic closer since the closer you are to the instrument, the less gain you'll need, and that too will minimize the contribution of a bad room. A closer mic position introduces proximity effect into the equation so you may want a mic that is built to minimize that effect or has a rolloff (high pass) switch.

[DukeX]

Originally Posted by Mbroady

Absolutely, if you are comparing apples to apples (LDC to LDC) the extra cash can make a difference in quality...

Well, ok then, LOL.

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by Mbroady

I agree that mics are (one of) the most important link(s) in the recording chain, but do the professionals consider “the room” as part of the chain? If an experienced engineer has no choice but to record in an untreated room, would they choose a high end condenser or perhaps a less expensive dynamic mic such as an 57/58 (though a SM7 might be better)? Much can be done with mic placement but it does have its limits.

I guess this equation and ultimate answer would be dependent on the definition of “professional engineer” I think by and large most professional engineers have the luxury of avoiding bad rooms and at all possible costs. But your point makes sense. Certainly addressing what is the primary problems in a “bad room” would for me dictate what mic I’d choose assuming I’d had choices.

For me the room is not only a component but a vital component of the recording chain. My experience tells me for any great acoustic instrument recording and in order of importance is 1) the talent 2) the room 3) the instrument 4) the mic. In some cases I’d argue 1 and 2 could be switched depending on what the content is and where it’s intended to be placed in the mix. Of course common sense applies here and all 4 and inextricably woven. A great signal chain with a disproportionately weak link in the above chain obviously skews the outcome.

I’ve been in some the very finest tracking rooms in the country and where I’m aware none of us here are capable of financing that kind of endeavor I’d also submit once you’ve heard a great room it simply can’t be unheard. It certainly however would be a topic I would think any home enthusiast would invest at least a level of fundamental understand in and in so address the issues properly to the level the budget and time allows.

[ethanay]

According to Dave Moulton, ceiling reflections are the worst offender by far:


http://www.moultonlabs.com/dave_more...orf_interview/
Takeaway Concepts (I am interested whether someone has interpreted this differently):
-near-field monitors do NOT take out all room reflections
-the psychological meaning of a sound: everything that comes to our ears that's phase-locked (vs out-of-phase) to some sound source and that arrives within 50 milliseconds lumps together as one sound.
-the early reflections of the playback room carry information about the recording room quite well
-loudspeakers themselves are perceived in stereo as early reflections of a sound whose direct version we missed
-wide dispersion of high frequencies, resulting in a reasonably flat power response laterally, is ideal behavior
-vertical reflections (from the floor to the ceiling) tend to upset our perception
-it should get better in small rooms
-by trying to deaden reflections with acoustic treatment, we only add a low-pass filter to the early reflections, making them sound muddy. This leads us to compensate by boosting high-end sizzle in recording and mixing.
-design philosophy for studios: create a perfectly reflective space for 50 milliseconds and then eliminate reflections or reverb after that (over 50 milliseconds). Allow all the early delays with as little frequency response change and as little amplitude loss as possible, and then nothing after that.
-stick in a huge absorber behind the speakers that takes out as much of the broadband stuff (all frequencies) as possible (20db)
-Windows as bass traps: glass can still act as a bass trap simply by passing bass through to the other side more readily than a rigid wall (depending on thickness/rigidity), surrounded by high frequency absorbers
-console splash (sound bouncing off the console) can change the sound quality of the speaker
-you aren't done mixing until you've made it sound good on a raft of different speakers in a raft of different environments at a whole bunch of different levels. No single speaker set or space can take care of everything.

Application: Deaden mid-late reflections (50ms+) by 20dB+; disperse or eliminate low ceiling reflections; front of room (behind speakers) soft (absorptive); use bass traps and isolate woofers/subwoofers; a side window can be a bass trap. Try to lay it out to make the median plane as long as possible so as many people as possible can sit on it and listen (vs short wide room).

[nsureit]

Not sure if it was posted in this thread yet, but best advice I received when I was just beginning to record was the 3 to 1 rule. When using two mics, the second mic should be horizontally separated three times the distance that the first mic is located from the signal source. This helps in some ways to prevent phase cancellation between the microphones. For example, if mic #1 is 18” from the guitar aiming at the sound hole, and mic #2 is aimed at the 12th fret, they should be spaced around 4.5’ apart. Placed 12” from guitar, the mics should be 3 feet apart. It takes the sound wave coming from the guitar a tiny bit more time to reach the 2nd mic - phase issue #1; phase issue # 2 arises from the variable sound levels received by the two mics. The sound level received by the mic over the 12th fret is around -10 dB less than received by the first mic. According to physical law, comb filtering is less likely to “cancel out” the sound waves when the sound level received by the 2nd mic is made sufficiently lower when placed using the 3:1 rule. It’s much too scientific for me. My early attempts at recording acoustic guitar sounded like crap because I stuck two mics close the the body of the guitar, and hit record.

As mentioned above in another post, mic placement should be your primary focus.