New mics - Line Audio CM4

[Wrighty]

Originally Posted by alohachris

Aloha Peter,







In response to your question, the distortion issues seem to occur most frequently at between 83 Hz (low E) through 200 Hz - basically the bottom three open wound strings. Bottom open A at 110 Hz is a problem. And it occurs most often at the first attack & beginning (on the bass key note(s) of a phrase or section. This noticeable distortion/almost buzz can't be hidden by the clarity of the high's, which are really good.







You might want to experiment again w/ the low pass filter & dialing in more subtractive EQ on the lower to mid frequencies before moving to other fixes. Save & compare as Bob suggests, so you don't lose any of the "good" changes.







I just listened again on my pretty good system, at a low level, & still hear it (just to check if it's my aging ears at different times of the day - Ha!). Like the helicopter in "Goodfella's," it's still there.







Man, you're so close & much improved, Peter. Hope you can tame those. Soon, "Celandine" will be perfect!







You have a good night too, my talented friend.







alohachris

Hi Chris







I have, this morning, revisited the track and done the following;







Adjusted the dynamic EQ as follows;







Band 1 : 80hz / -3.5db



Band 2 : 110hz / -3.5db



Band 3 188hz (slightly less reduction at -1.4db)



High pass : 55hz



The cuts are fairly wide in Q - this may be too much so I’d like to hear your view on this.



This seems to match the problem areas - see pic.







It certainly sounds different - more clarity but also less bass in general so have I taken the body out of the track too much or to your ears does it just sound clearer.







I am trying to learn what I should be listening to and hearing - not easy.



Screenshot 2020-09-22 at 10.48.48.jpg



By way of some form of control - here is a clean re-recording as you suggested done this morning and with nothing at all added except for a level adjustment and the body side mic raised a touch

[alohachris]

Aloha Peter,

Thanks for going to the trouble of re-editing "Celandine." You are so open to trying different approaches right away. That is so cool for those trying to help. Again, your playing is excellent.

The newly edited version is dramatically improved, especially compared to the 'control' version you added - thank you for that. Do you hear the huge differences? Your roll-off EQing of the lower-mid freq's has paid off. End of most distortion, lotsa clarity. You could still come down just a tad off @ 110Hz. Overall, only a few hinto fuzzy intro notes remain & no more distortion. Great Clarity across the spectrum. Doesn't sound too scooped either. A Solid acoustic recording, mostly.

Question: How far out are the mic's on this piece. Using the new mic's? (Man, I'd love to hear that recorded on CMC641's or M295's).

The changes you made really draw the intended drama out of "Celandine," plus your great, expressive playing is elevated, but without the distraction of any distortion.

Your sensitive take on that piece shows that you really value that important space between the notes as well as the notes themselves. Some would call it "God's Beat." And whatever you do to promote or "play" that is what makes the slower, subtle pieces like "Celandine" truly come alive. Again, Alex DeGrassi's layering of his notes & runs comes to mind. Doug Young's too.

Good Take, Peter. Keep refining it - but again, take the 'less is more approach,' espoused by Doug & Derek &...me. Change the mic placement (back a bit?) & use subtractive EQ before rushing to plug-in's, like less Ozone or any digital fixes. Very light reverb(s) if any. Very light compression, but only if the piece demands it.

I avoided compression on just about all my recordings & was glad, (not a Hedges-style tapper here) even though I had a very smooth, high-end UA 1176 external analog compression unit for years. Never used it much except lightly on some vocals. I love basic, unplugged acoustic guitar sound too much to process it very much for recording. Back when we had to use Dolby noise reduction on analog tape, I mostly hated what it did to the subtleties & nuances of the acoustic guitar. Always a compromise with tape hiss.

Keep an eye on how Doug Young (& Derek) records his exceptional acoustic recordings, Peter. Despite the great gear, great guitars, tunings & technique, he uses the tools very sparingly & discreetly, with the lightest of touches in editing & mastering.

Here's something he shared at AGF a decade ago that may change your perception of how to track, edit & master a solo guitar piece from start to finish on a great signal chain, & with help from a respected ME. This is a game changer for those who are well into learning the DAW recording process & need another road map. Enjoy Peter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5kCVXyQDys

You can also listen to the wav. file on Doug's site. Maximize the clip quality to 1080p HD.


Bravo Peter! More! More! Hana Hou!

alohachris

[Wrighty]

Aloha Chris - and thank you for taking the time to listen again and contribute to my learning process so much, I really do appreciate it and it is one of the reasons this forum is so great.

I do hear that the new EQ version is so much cleaner and felt it was better - so it is great to have that confirmed so I can re-listen to it and get my ear tuned.

The mics were close - about 10” away from the guitar so I can certainly try moving them further back.

Lots to process (so to speak) here - again, thanks.

[Wrighty]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

One quick example is a dull recording that still has sibilance. If you lift the upper frequencies to brighten up the sound and make enunciation clearer, you elevate the sibilance as well. Often the dull sound is caused by the artist not being-on mic. So, you use the shelving eq to brighten up the high end and then sweep another band through the high frequencies until you find the predominant sibilant sound. Pull it back to "0" boost or cut. Now, move the threshold down to where the sibilants go over threshold and the rest of the upper frequencies don't. From there you can adjust the range, watching the dynamic curve to see the interaction of the dynamic curve to oppose the spike of sibilance while listening to make sure you aren't making the high-end dull again. You can also adjust the "Q" to set the width of the skirts of the EQ and try to make the DeEsser as specific as possible without harming the voice otherwise. The range and "Q" controls will figure into the control of the problem prominently.You can use that technique for either the static problems, just like you did before, or the dynamic problems, such as sibilance or room boom.

Bob

Bob, can I ask you a further question pls?

I understand why I would cut a sibilant point out of a shelved eq, but I often see high frequency points in dynamic eq without a shelf - in this case why would I increase gain only to compress? Surely I’d be better off reducing gain and then compressing and only increasing gain where I want to expand.

Does that make sense?

Thx

Peter

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by Wrighty

Bob, can I ask you a further question pls?

I understand why I would cut a sibilant point out of a shelved eq, but I often see high frequency points in dynamic eq without a shelf - in this case why would I increase gain only to compress? Surely I’d be better off reducing gain and then compressing and only increasing gain where I want to expand.

Does that make sense?

Thx

Peter

I'm not really sure what you mean. The main reason to increase gain is if an improper mic choice or improper mic technique causes a frequency area to be unnaturally attenuated. I typically do more cutting than boosting. But there are cases where the wrong mic has been used or the wrong technique has been used and you end up with the high end rolled off or depressed.


Bob

[Wrighty]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

I'm not really sure what you mean. The main reason to increase gain is if an improper mic choice or improper mic technique causes a frequency area to be unnaturally attenuated. I typically do more cutting than boosting. But there are cases where the wrong mic has been used or the wrong technique has been used and you end up with the high end rolled off or depressed.


Bob

Thanks Bob.

I’m trying to understand why you might boost the gain of a frequency, only then to compress it once it reaches the threshold you set - to my mind if I boost then I’d want to expand once the threshold is hit and not compress.

So cut would be matched with compress and boost with expand - but that’s not always the case it appears.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by Wrighty

Thanks Bob.

I’m trying to understand why you might boost the gain of a frequency, only then to compress it once it reaches the threshold you set - to my mind if I boost then I’d want to expand once the threshold is hit and not compress.

So cut would be matched with compress and boost with expand - but that’s not always the case it appears.

With a dynamic equalizer you can boost up volume of the softer played notes within some frequency range without the loudly played notes in that frequency range getting too loud.

In my earlier example in Pro-Fab Q I did it a little differently. I reduced the volume of a broad band range of frequencies, listened to the effect and then partially brought back up the volume of certain narrow frequency ranges within that broad band reduction that I wanted to hear more of. The dynamic option was not selected. Another thing you can easily do in Pro-Fab Q is individually equalize (dynamically or not) the R and L channels of a stereo track (for example sometimes a harsh sounding frequency comes from one mike and not the other). Moderately done with a narrow frequency band I have not noticed any spatial soundstage oddity.
However you can get carried away tweaking things if you get into the minutia.

[Wrighty]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

With a dynamic equalizer you can boost up volume of the softer played notes within some frequency range without the loudly played notes in that frequency range getting too loud.

In my earlier example in Pro-Fab Q I did it a little differently. I reduced the volume of a broad band range of frequencies, listened to the effect and then partially brought back up the volume of certain narrow frequency ranges within that broad band reduction that I wanted to hear more of. The dynamic option was not selected. Another thing you can easily do in Pro-Fab Q is individually equalize (dynamically or not) the R and L channels of a stereo track (for example sometimes a harsh sounding frequency comes from one mike and not the other). Moderately done with a narrow frequency band I have not noticed any spatial soundstage oddity.
However you can get carried away tweaking things if you get into the minutia.

That makes sense Derek.

In that example you would still be increasing volume on a selected frequency then choosing to expand it (not compress) - so I still can’t see any reason for increasing gain and then compressing?

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by Wrighty

That makes sense Derek.

In that example you would still be increasing volume on a selected frequency then choosing to expand it (not compress) - so I still can’t see any reason for increasing gain and then compressing?

Compression could bring up the volume of the quieter notes without making the already loud enough notes too loud. There are other sound altering things you can do with compression but I never experimented much with that.

Personally I have never used compression in a final track and probably won't use the dynamic feature of Pro-Fab Q. If I have some note(s) I want louder (or quieter) I would create a volume envelope.

In my example I wanted to lower a wide range of frequencies to clean up a congested (muddy) sound and then listening to that I found a few frequencies (notes) within that range to bring back up a little. That seemed like the most logical and quick way to deal with it. It's all about volume levels, not compressed dynamic ranges.

[Wrighty]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Compression could bring up the volume of the quieter notes without making the already loud enough notes too loud. There are other sound altering things you can do with compression but I never experimented much with that.



Personally I have never used compression in a final track and probably won't use the dynamic feature of Pro-Fab Q. If I have some note(s) I want louder (or quieter) I would create a volume envelope.



In my example I wanted to lower a wide range of frequencies to clean up a congested (muddy) sound and then listening to that I found a few frequencies (notes) within that range to bring back up a little. That seemed like the most logical and quick way to deal with it. It's all about volume levels, not compressed dynamic ranges.

Ok, now I understand, thanks for taking the time to explain :-)