 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Rachel
Date: 2003-12-21 01:23
How close is the sound you hear through a microphone to your actual sound?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2003-12-21 01:59
Place the microphone as far away as your audience.
It should pick up some of the room's coloring, to get a clear sample.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ralph Katz
Date: 2003-12-21 02:41
Darned near impossible to answer. There are a lot of variables.
Depends on the microphone, mixer, amplifier, speakers, and settings of all of the knobs and dials thereon. Depends on the room, how many people are in it, as well as the temperature and humidity. Also depends on your definition of "close".
What you hear is a mix of reflected sound and if you use a single embouchure and don't have a thick mouthpiece patch the sound transmitted from the mouthpiece through your teeth. Put in some foam earplugs to get an idea of what I am talking about.
Oh, and also, what is the resonse curve of your hearing?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2003-12-21 09:02
Ralph....very well said....Personally, I sound better than I am...to myself... live or recorded, Oh yeah.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Pinner
Date: 2003-12-22 09:14
Are you talking about a mike that is recording or one used for amplification? Amplification is a fairly imperfect science. Recording is more dependent on the medium used to capture the sound.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David
Date: 2003-12-22 11:47
For recording, try a Pressure Zone Microphone. It records the sound pretty faithfully and it not that badly affected by the ambience of the room.
They are reasonably cheap from Radio Shack, or Tandy, as I think they call it in Oz. Hangover from the Empire, it's called that in the UK too.
David
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2003-12-22 13:55
Try recording your own voice in conversation with someone else. The other person will sound the same on the recording, but you'll be surprised at what you sound like.
The same goes for clarinet tone. Whatever mic you use, the recording will sound closer to what the audience hears than what you sound like to yourself. Bone conduction and resonance inside your mouth and nasal cavity make a huge difference.
It's just something you have to get used to, and that's why you need to record yourself from time to time, to get perspective.
By the way, for years (until I got some good stuff), I used two $19 Radio Shack electret condenser mics, which, to my ears, were more accurate than the Sony stereo mics at $75-90. In particular, stay away from the ones that have no cord, but plug directly into the side of the recorder, since they pick up lots of mechanical noise.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rachel
Date: 2003-12-23 01:29
I should have been clearer in my original post. I meant an amplification microphone.
I have given up on my tape recorder, it is really old, it distorts the pitch by ridiculous amounts (up to a 4th), and it distorts the sound so much that it makes me sound like a goose in heat. (Which I know I don't sound like, numerous musicians and non-musicians have told me that I have a good sound.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2003-12-23 02:32
Quote:
and it distorts the sound so much that it makes me sound like a goose in heat. Possibly the greatest description of a "bad sound" I have ever heard! You can bet I'm logging that one away for future use!
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2003-12-23 11:06
I wondered why all those big birds land outside my window whenever I practice.
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: msloss
Date: 2003-12-23 12:44
Rachel, there is no such thing as an "amplification microphone". There are however microphones that are more suitable for that use than others. For stage work, we generally use highly directional microphones because (a) they don't pick up as much of the person playing next to you; and (b) to cut down on feedback from the monitors. I use the same types of mics in the studio for isolating individual players, and as pairs for recording large ensembles.
Assuming you use one of these directional microphones (look up cardioid or hypercardioid), the proximity of the mic to the instrument will determine a great deal of what is heard through amplification. In close, you get more of the brilliance and richness of the instrument, but you get more mechanical noise (keys, breathing, etc.) and certain notes and aspects of the sound are emphasized based on where the mic is aimed. The further back you place the mic, the more coherent and wholistic the sound becomes, but also the thinner and smaller the sound appears as you lose the proximity effect of most directional mics.
Long-winded way of saying it depends on perspective. If it is even a half-decent mic it is all "your sound", just the same as how somebody hears you standing close, sitting far away, sticking their fingers in their ears, or eating crackers. [This is where somebody throws in a clever Dr. Seuss reference]
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ralph Katz
Date: 2003-12-23 18:24
There are other threads here regarding microphones.
Directionality is good and bad. You don't want to pick up other players, but then the clarinet sound is both directed through the bell (all fingers down) and diffuse through the tone holes (all fingers up). 1) Mike only the directed sound and you will honk when all your fingers are down and drop out when all your fingers are up. 2) Mike only the diffuse sound and you will drop out when your fingers are all down.
Using two mikes solves this problem. There are a couple of commercial products that do this on little boom-lets that clip to the edge of your bell. They are not inexpensive. A good alternative to this is to use two conventional mikes positioned at your bell and between your fingers.
You can do well with a microphone that is not too directional by positioning it so as to hear both types of sounds.
At the 1998 ICA convention, Buddy Defranko used what the sound man called a "funky old lavalier mike" and it sounded very good, although it had problem 2) above.
|-(8^)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rachel
Date: 2003-12-24 11:14
Ok, once again I need to be clearer. I meant "a microphone used for the purposes of amplifying one's instrument".
I was using one of those microphones on a stand that people use to speak into, hooked up to an amp. It was placed quite close to the top of my instrument.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ralph Katz
Date: 2003-12-25 15:01
This thread from last January has URL's for some other threads regarding microphones:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=101198&t=101153
Regards & Happy Holidays
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
