Recording critique - next steps

[rick-slo]

Played a bit with "Night Fishing - Final Test - NO EQ - Reduced Reverb". Very good recording but a bit congested in bass and needed IMO a bit more air.

Of course this is working with the SoundCloud resolution, not the original wav file.

http://dcoombsguitar.com/Misc/AGFNight.wav

[Wrighty]

Originally Posted by KevWind

First yes you can try(experiment with) moving a bit further away from the panels (everything is compromise and no one solution fits all)
Also the 50-60 ms pre daly is my personal preference for vocal and guitar (same reverb). 25 may be better for solo guitar or what you prefer, so its all good .

I am not familiar with iZotopes EQ, but looks to me like the Reaper "ReaEQ" will work fine.

While I do sometimes boost I never do that without first doing some subtractive "cutting" in the problem frequencies and usually only when I have first doing subtractive, and have multiple instruments and need to "carve out space" then highlight different instruments

What you want is multi bands on the EQ with adjustable "Q" (or bandwidth) , with the ReaEQ you can have the exact number of bands you want from only one, up to a bunch of them . Start with say 4 band plus a high and low pass, so 6 total

Start with the low end first ( everything is subject to experiment), BUT Start by setting the high pass, to filter out everything somewhere below say 50 hz to 80 hz

Then to try to isolate the biggest problem frequencies, start with a "search method" so in the other bands Use "Band type" selection and make the bandwidth pretty narrow.

Then start with the nex higher band (still in the low freq range) boost this way up (for now only to exaggerate ) and slowly sweep back and forth from say from 100 hz to 500hz somewhere in that range you likely hear something pretty boxy, tubby and echo'y like being in a big corrugated conduit pipe...... (Note...... while each guitar, mic and pre are different) often you find this boxy sound at somewhere around 250 hz and also an octave up at around 500 hz then simply leave the bandwidth narrow and move the gain down to say a 4-6 db cut for just that narrow problem frequency.

Next do the the same for the high mids say 4kHz to 6kHz and you will likely hear a distinct bell like ringing,,, then cut there.
And remember this is a game of subtlety NOT drastic.......
Do this and compare by ear to the track with the EQ bypassed you should hear it being slightly clearer you may even find the uncut frequencies being more present and more clear.


Here is a Kenny Gioia tutorial on the Reaper ReaEQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh_u3aRr4VE

Thanks - I just had a go at that, very interesting..

Here’s a screen shot and also the sound file - better?



Screenshot 2020-08-08 at 15.40.11.jpg

[Wrighty]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Played a bit with "Night Fishing - Final Test - NO EQ - Reduced Reverb". Very good recording but a bit congested in bass and needed IMO a bit more air.

Of course this is working with the SoundCloud resolution, not the original wav file.

http://dcoombsguitar.com/Misc/AGFNight.wav

Thanks Derek - agree with your observations and I like the clarity and "air" I your revised version - can you give me any insight into how you achieved it pls?

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by Wrighty

Thanks Derek - agree with your observations and I like the clarity and "air" I your revised version - can you give me any insight into how you achieved it pls?

Generally in this case and in order:

Bit of R/L volume balance

Looked at frequency spectrum in FabFilter Pro-Q3 and narrow Q sweeped looking for droning frequency bands that over resonated and cut a few decibels there.

Picked a reverb with a lean toward brightening and clarifying overall.

[Wrighty]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Generally in this case and in order:



Bit of R/L volume balance



Looked at frequency spectrum in FabFilter Pro-Q3 and narrow Q sweeped looking for droning frequency bands that over resonated and cut a few decibels there.



Picked a reverb with a lean toward brightening and clarifying overall.

Thanks.

Funnily enough I felt the track was leaning towards being a bit right heavy and so reduced the right channel about 2db..

What type of reverb adds clarity?

[TBman]

Originally Posted by Wrighty

Thanks - I just had a go at that, very interesting..

Here’s a screen shot and also the sound file - better?



Attachment 42274

The subtractive eq sounds a bit tighter, a more rounded tone with less "air" under it as compared to the "Final test."

[Wrighty]

Originally Posted by TBman

The subtractive eq sounds a bit tighter, a more rounded tone with less "air" under it as compared to the "Final test."

Thanks Barry - I agree.

I have learnt a lot in this thread!

[Wrighty]

Originally Posted by KevWind

So it appears as if you are in an upstairs room with the angled ceiling being the bottom of the vaulted roof rafters (correct ? ) Which is actually fine, and perhaps better than a low flat ceiling. That said in rectangular room (and only generally speaking and depending on actual room dimensions ) you might want to position the mics more out into the room and not so close the end wall. Start approximately in a 1/3 to 2/3 position in relation to the long side
Generally while you "do want" to be centered (between the two long sides) but "do not" want be in the center length wise.

As to your recordings .
I am at this point listening on lap top ear buds SO with that in mind :

As to mixing (again speaking only generally ) but a good rule of thumb is ......Clarity is much much more a function of "Subtractive EQ" =cut, then "Additive EQ" = boost.

In general judicious "Subtractive EQ" will increase clarity and presence and will maintain balance throughout the entire frequency range.
Where as "Additive EQ" can often actually reduce clarity by creating unnatural buildup in the frequency/s being boosted and begin to skew the frequency balance, and introduce an edge or harshness to the mix (reducing warmth) .

BTW it sounds to me like you boosted EQ somewhere in the mid's or upper mid's and that the EQ'ed track is somewhat louder than the no EQ track, which will automatically (at first blush and when starting out ) tend to make it sound "better" But in reality it isn't , its just louder .

Reverb is very subjective BUT (if you have not already done it ) I would put the reverb on its own track, set 50ms to 60 ms "pre delay" and send to it . I would run it at 100 % wet and reduce that Reverb track faders (to taste) try somewhere between 10 db to 20 db reduction,

Kev

Can I ask you a question regarding treatment placement please.

I currently play facing in to a three sided square - so treatment in front of me and to both sides but nothing behind me. I did this to calm any reflections coming straight from the guitar.

I have read somewhere that I should reverse this and play with the treatment behind me, as this is the live side of the mics - and dispense with the treatment in front of me as this is the dead side of the mics.

Would you agree?

Essentially I have three large panels (1.4m x 1.4m) and then multiple smaller 0.6x0.6 that can be placed anywhere.

Thanks

Peter.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Wrighty

Kev

Can I ask you a question regarding treatment placement please.

I currently play facing in to a three sided square - so treatment in front of me and to both sides but nothing behind me. I did this to calm any reflections coming straight from the guitar.

I have read somewhere that I should reverse this and play with the treatment behind me, as this is the live side of the mics - and dispense with the treatment in front of me as this is the dead side of the mics.

Would you agree?

Essentially I have three large panels (1.4m x 1.4m) and then multiple smaller 0.6x0.6 that can be placed anywhere.

Thanks

Peter.

Peter that is a good question. However I don't know, and would suggest there is no pat answer per se. BUT (it being easy to simply turn the mic's around, I would suggest experiment with it and see if you hear an improvement )

Because as far as reflections and possible problems, so much depends on the actual exact room dimensions. Its been a long while since I was researching it but, if I remember correctly evenly divided dimensions tend to be the most problematic for creating issues . Like 12 ft by 24 ft. etc. (not sure how this relates to metric)

[ChuckS]

Ratio of the (distance of the direct signal to mic) to the (distance of the reflected signal to mic) is another factor to consider in placement of your panels. For example, if the wall behind you is 10 feet away, and the mic is 1 foot from the guitar, the reflected signal off the back wall is about 26dB lower at the mic than the direct signal coming from the guitar (this is most applicable to low frequencies that transmit in every direction from the guitar).

Considering the direct:indirect signal distance can help quite a bit, as the power of the signal drops relative to the distance squared (i.e. if the distance is doubled the signal strength power is reduced by 4). Use distance, mic directionality, and your panels in combination to get the best effect.

[keith.rogers]

The short answer is keep experimenting.

And, you didn't ask me, but if you want to optimize [good] signal to [bad] environmental noise ratio, the noises that will intrude most will be arriving at the mic where it is most sensitive, based on its polar pattern. So, for a cardioid mic, most of those noises will be arriving from the area in front of the mic, which, yes, includes the area behind you.

So, treatment behind you will block some noises also coming from behind you, but it depends a lot on your room and what is in front of you whether it's going to help more. If you've got a nice bookcase behind you, and a wall size mirror or window in front of you, it might be more effective to block sounds from first getting to that reflection point, because once they get there, they'll bounce all over the room.

Put another way, you might want to look at the most reflective surfaces, and consider how to minimize sound getting to them and then the reflections getting to the mic, by treatment, distances, mic angle, etc. And don't forget that the polar pattern is not 2 dimensional, but includes the floor and ceiling.

[Wrighty]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Peter that is a good question. However I don't know, and would suggest there is no pat answer per se. BUT (it being easy to simply turn the mic's around, I would suggest experiment with it and see if you hear an improvement )



Because as far as reflections and possible problems, so much depends on the actual exact room dimensions. Its been a long while since I was researching it but, if I remember correctly evenly divided dimensions tend to be the most problematic for creating issues . Like 12 ft by 24 ft. etc. (not sure how this relates to metric)

Thanks Kev - I understand there is not often a simple answer when learning recording but as you say it’s easy to experiment - my challenge is in analysing the recording post experiment as I find it very hard to differentiate which is actually “better”

Appreciate the help here - I am learning all the time.

[Wrighty]

Originally Posted by keith.rogers

The short answer is keep experimenting.



And, you didn't ask me, but if you want to optimize [good] signal to [bad] environmental noise ratio, the noises that will intrude most will be arriving at the mic where it is most sensitive, based on its polar pattern. So, for a cardioid mic, most of those noises will be arriving from the area in front of the mic, which, yes, includes the area behind you.



So, treatment behind you will block some noises also coming from behind you, but it depends a lot on your room and what is in front of you whether it's going to help more. If you've got a nice bookcase behind you, and a wall size mirror or window in front of you, it might be more effective to block sounds from first getting to that reflection point, because once they get there, they'll bounce all over the room.



Put another way, you might want to look at the most reflective surfaces, and consider how to minimize sound getting to them and then the reflections getting to the mic, by treatment, distances, mic angle, etc. And don't forget that the polar pattern is not 2 dimensional, but includes the floor and ceiling.

Nonetheless I do appreciate your answer so thanks for chiming in.

Behind me is actually a series of built in wooden shelves in cube form, on which I have lost of bits and bobs. In front is my large acoustic panel.

I can easily enough put some panels or similar behind me too.

Room is 3.3m long and 2.2m wide so the distance from my back to the rear shelves is around 2m I guess, which will see the reflections reduced by the time they get back to the mics.

Thanks!

[Wrighty]

Originally Posted by ChuckS

Ratio of the (distance of the direct signal to mic) to the (distance of the reflected signal to mic) is another factor to consider in placement of your panels. For example, if the wall behind you is 10 feet away, and the mic is 1 foot from the guitar, the reflected signal off the back wall is about 26dB lower at the mic than the direct signal coming from the guitar (this is most applicable to low frequencies that transmit in every direction from the guitar).

Considering the direct:indirect signal distance can help quite a bit, as the power of the signal drops relative to the distance squared (i.e. if the distance is doubled the signal strength power is reduced by 4). Use distance, mic directionality, and your panels in combination to get the best effect.

Thanks Chuck - that’s useful to know as it is relevant in my case.

I guess my thinking was that most of the sound that might have hit the back wall and be reflected back to the mics was going to be soaked up by the large panel in front of me?(and to my sides)

[ChuckS]

Originally Posted by Wrighty

Thanks Chuck - that’s useful to know as it is relevant in my case.

I guess my thinking was that most of the sound that might have hit the back wall and be reflected back to the mics was going to be soaked up by the large panel in front of me?(and to my sides)

Yes, but the reflections off the wall behind you will be picked up by the mic before they are absorbed. If you have another large panel I’d add it behind you.