 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: katchow
Date: 2004-05-27 12:54
well, i've been going through the posts the last few days trying to figure out a decent/cheap solution for recording my clarinet.
with all the information i'm a little confused...
ok, since this is for recording (not performing) only i should be looking for a omni-directional mic?
i see the word "condenser" being used a lot (i really don't know much about mic's) and people recommending a mic with a large diaphragm...are these two of the main qualities i should be looking for?
i was looking at the "Omnidirectional Boundary Microphone" at radio shack. Some had mention it might be the replacement for the discontinued PMZ mics...has anyone tried it? or know anything about it? i couldn't gather much from the specs on their website...
http://www.radioshack.com/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=CTLG&product%5Fid=33-3022
except that the price is right up my alley...i was looking for something between 50-100 dollars. I realize how much the really good mics cost, the keyword here is decent...
any help is greatly appreciated
kevin
ps- i'm using my laptop to record. I've got a mic input (1/8) through a usb device called "iMic"...i've got software for mixing and recording multitracks, which i'm fairly savvy at, but so far all i've used is my built-in mic, which is subpar to say the least...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2004-05-27 14:42
One problem that you're going to face with the use of a Powerbook/iBook is that virtually all of the "professional microphones" use a different interface that that used by the iMike attachment. You're going to need some sort of crossover cable that will convert XLR to the mini-plug that is the only route into the iMike.
The below is a synthesis of my experience with microphones and recording instrumental sound. Much of it is second hand, required a lot of reading in some odd places, and it's not fully digested even yet. Others, of course, may know far more.
My musical group, Sounds Of The South Dance Orchestra, originally considered going the all-computer route, as software now available that duplicates every function of a pro mixing board. However, the interface issue (getting the sound into the computer) is the main stumbling block. Most commercially available sound to computer input interfaces are set up with rock in mind. That means four or so channels in at the most.
(For that matter, most "sound information" is set up with rock in mind. The first book that I read on the topic had precisely three paragraphs devoted to what the author called "horns"; all of the rest was about miking guitar amps, drums and so forth. As a non-rock musician, you're setting forth on a voyage in a strange ocean when you start looking into recording these days. Once that trip is done, try setting sail on the uncharted ocean that is professional lighting systems...)
Anyway, with four channels the idea is that you "DI" (direct inject) the keyboards into one channel, the bass into another (both by "phone" cord directly from the instruments in question), leaving you with two channels left to play with for everything else. With a clarinet and a piano, or a clarinet trio, that'll work just fine, but with a sizable group, it's very limiting.
n order to work around that, you need to start "mixing" channels down to single channels. This is why an affordable computer recording setup is pretty limiting if you're not doing rock. Even with a two thousand dollar investment (not counting the software and the computer), you still only get about eight channels into the software mixer the last time that I discussed the problem with those who know more than I.
My group (Vegas style, "big band" with three vocalists) uses two different setups for miking. One is the standard performance mode PA, which is fed through the PA as a mono signal. (For a variety of reasons, stereo does not work well in a live performance venue.)
Here, the standard setup is five vocal mike channels (four vocals, one for public address and as a spare), five instrumental mike channels (soloist use only), DI for keyboards and bass (mostly to feed some of their sound to the rest of the group through monitors), and one channel for pre-recorded sound (for the band breaks). Total inputs are thirteen, fed through a sub mixer (five instrumentals) and the main mixer (one channel from the submixer, plus one channel for everything else).
To mike all of this, we use Shure SM 57s (a standard selection, just like IBM used to be for computers) for the five instrumental solo mikes, and Shure SM 58s (the usual "standard" choice) for the vocalists. These microphones are all "dynamic" (non-condenser, requiring no outside power source), quite robust in construction, and do a good enough job considering the circumstances. With dynamic mikes, you're talking a $100 price range for a piece of equipment that can take a tumble and still keep on working.
All of these are cardioids, with a "heart shaped" pickup pattern that minimizes outside noise getting into that particular circuit. The instrumental mikes are spotted at bell height for the brass, at bell height (and upside down) for the saxes, pointed at center of mass for the clarinet and bass clarinet, and at the blowhole for the flute. (We've experimented with aiming them at the bell of clarinets, but you get a better overall result with the center of mass technique.) You can vary both volume and bass response by changing the distance and orientation of the horn to the mike...very neat when you are a weak flute player trying to fill in a critical part.
It's different for recording, however. My main drummer Phil, who doubles as a sound and recording dude when he's not selling offshore oilfield equipment to Norwegians, uses a very complicated mix of microphones. Most are condenser style, and they are carefully placed so as to control the "field" that they sweep. And, these suckers are expensive; three to five hundred dollars retail and about two thirds of that wholesale. You don't want to drop one. All condenser mikes require a power source, which is usually handled through "phantom power" fed down the mike cord from the mixer. Those who don't have phantom power feeds need to ensure that each mike is powered up, an added headache.
Total number of inputs here are in the neighborhood of fifteen, but some are used twice (as noted below). Lotsa microphone cords underfoot, to be sure...it takes the best part of two hours to tear down the setup each time that we record.
With recording, isolation of the particular sound feeds is the key. You want each feed to be pure, so that it can be controlled carefully before it is dropped into the final mix. Our set up for recording resembles a huge V shaped formation, with everyone playing "away" from everyone else's microphone. (You can hear and see everyone else, but the "bleed over" to adjacent mikes is minimal.) Phil's drum set has no less than four mikes covering various items; some of these are the only "omni-directional" mikes in the mix.
The idea is that the selective fields of "reception" or sensitivity of each mike picks up what needs to be picked up, and little else. (This process is further helped along by the use of "gates" and other such stuff best left undiscussed.) Then, the sound engineer "mixes" the result at the mixer board to ensure that all is in balance and harmony (and properly compressed and so forth) before the master recording is written to disk or optical disk. This mixing process takes out the anomalies caused by the microphones themselves ( for example, drums, even when quietly played, drown out everything else in a recording that is not properly mixed), the structure of the setup and room acoustics, and various little quirks caused by the difference between the microphone's sensitivity and that of the human ear that it is mimicking.
Each sax player has a ominous looking "can suspended by elastic bands" hanging right under his nose. You have to be very careful to hold the horn at the right distance with these condenser mikes, and solos are played "up" a bit by shifting an inch or two closer.
(Also, from hard experience, muttering "Oh, shit" under your breath when you have trouble with a particular passage is not a good practice to follow when recording. I have a mastered copy of one of my performances of Peter And The Wolf that features that little vocal performance; we redid the offending section.)
The center of mass technique is used here with clarinets as well; point the imaginary heart-shaped pattern that surrounds the mike at the G# key and go from there. Flute works a bit differently, but I don't remember how.
(Oddly enough, each brass section is only covered by two microphones, unless there is a prominent solo part in the section. I don't understand how that works, but it does.)
As is standard in all recording, we do the music first, then "punch in" the vocals later. The vocalists sing along with the mixed down recording of the musicians (heard in headphones), and their "live" performance is then mixed in for the final product. Other audio lines like tamborines, wood blocks and hand clapping (which is quite hard to record accurately if Phil is to be believed) are also "punched in" at this time.
(Phil really, really wants to follow the rock pattern when recording, by laying down the rhythm first (bass, guitar, piano, drums), and then add each section in a similar fashion to the vocals. We tried it once, but the final product seems to lack "presence" and the interaction between the sections that you hear in a live performance, so I've vetoed that approach for now.)
Long and short of it, I don't envy the choices facing you. Just finding a good microphone that will match both the sound characteristics of the clarinet and the input limitations of the iMike interface are problem enough. Once you get past that, you have all of the rest of the wonderful world of sound recording to deal with. I get a headache every time I have to deal with Peak or other sound software, and once you really get started you'll be seeing dozens of rows of little knobs in your sleep.
You could always take up rock bass...DI that sucker, lay down a rhythm track or two, and then howl in the vocals. Yeah, that's the ticket...
leader of Houston's Sounds Of The South Dance Orchestra
info@sotsdo.com
Post Edited (2004-05-27 15:10)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2004-05-27 14:59
Terry,
Permit me to ask an ignorant question --- why not record "a la concert", that is, two-track, real-time, with everyone playing at once, on a concert stage with just two really good omni recording mics? I realize that everybody has to be that at there same time, nobody is allowed to make a mistake, and there's no juggling of individual balances --- but it's enormously simpler and you'll get the interaction and 'live feel' between the musicians.
I've worked both extremes, and I think I know your answer already, but still it would be instructive to get your take on this.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: katchow
Date: 2004-05-27 15:23
wow, thanks for the response
sounds like a pretty complicated situation...luckily, i'm no where near the ballpark your in.
Thats some good info though, and i'm sure it will prove useful to many others on the BBoard.
Right now for me, i've just been laying down a track of ukulele or guitar and another track of clarinet. Also, my friend in the UK (who i use to play in a rock band with, bass actually ) has been emailing tracks he'd like me to add horns to. That and i like grooving to the play-a-long tracks...so essentially, we're talking one track at a time stufff.
i dunno about the iMic...i thought it would handle the regular line-in mics w/
1/8 inch plugs w/o need of some sort of preamp (hope i'm using the correct terminology)...i've heard its actually a little better than plugging directly to a soundcard because the hardware samples outside the computer (24 bit at that) avoiding some of internal rumbling of your cpu/HD/etc...don't ask me about details though, i'm already confused enough.
so i guess i can rule out a lot of the pro mics that require a preamp (is that the word?) but are there some decent ones out there that don't require addt'l equipment?
kev
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2004-05-27 16:04
David, first and foremost, I don't claim to be an "expert" here; most of my knowledge of the recording process is of the "exception" variety. Having said that...
"Live" recordings have their own problems to deal with. Aside from background noise, you are dealing with the very real problems of the microphones and the differences between the various instruments and the way that they "record".
A digression:
Most people have never heard the true sounds of an artillery explosion or the main gun on a tank firing. I have a video recording of the "open house" put on by my old post Fort Knox back in 1990, and the gunnery displayed thereon is truly impressive. However, the sound (recorded by a dynamic microphone on the video camera) sounds dull and tinny.
Having spent much time listening to explosions first hand (year in the field as a tank commander in RVN, 1970), I can assure you that the recording just doesn't sound like the real thing. But, if all you ever hear is the recording, you won't know the difference. (And, if all you hear is the real thing, you rapidly lose the ability to hear much of anything right...voice of experience talking here, folks.)
The key is to record the sound with the right equipment (i.e., a microphone capable of absorbing the 160 dbA sound levels that the gun generates). This is what is done for movie sound effects; the explosions that you see on screen are "punched in" once the filming is complete. The gun fire (if it is done right) uses one miking setup, and the voices a completely different one.
To hear this done right, watch the last half of the movie Full Metal Jacket. While much of the story line is schlock, and the light infantry tactics depicted are moronic at best, the sound recording (with one exception) is done right. M-60 machine guns sound like M-60 machine guns, right down to the extractor noise and the link ejection (not some stock sounds punched in), the main gun discharge on the M-41 light tank sounds like the real thing, the M-79 grenade launcher ditto, and so forth.
(The one exception is the explosion of the main gun round from the M-41. Our ARVN allies had this vehicle in RVN (unlike in the movie; the Marines only used M48A1 and A3s), and I've been on and around them quite a bit. In the movie, the main gun discharge is an M-41 sound, but the explosion (high up in some building) is neither a real impact nor the real sound of that gun's round bursting. It's just a stock sound, plugged in by the Foley artist...an understandable economy, but a shortcut all the same.)
Anyway, back to the problem at hand.
Let's apply this to music. Clarinets sound like clarinets, with their own frequency and amplitude issues. Pianos sound like pianos, flutes sound like flutes, and trumpets sound like...well, you get the idea.
Record them all at "equal level" with a pair of omni-directional microphones and you get what those microphones "hear"...or don't hear. As brass and winds "sound different" to microphones, a pair of omni mikes gets all of the sound (good and bad), all in one "mix" without much in the way of control. (You can fiddle with the frequency prominence at the mixer a bit, but it affects all of the instruments, not any particular one.)
Throw drums (any drums, even a tastefully played combo style drum part) into your "omni" setup, and everything goes south. Their "high impact" sound pressures created by the vibrating drum heads "crush" the microphones set up to record everything, and a mess is the result. You listen to the recording of a performance that you know "went well", and you wonder if this was done at the same place.
The rock crowd does a lot of this stuff, and prodigious indeed are the efforts that go into "equalizing" it all before the track is ready for the final laydown. Check out a sound setup for a rock concert sometime, and you'll wonder what the hell it is all for. And, no matter how careful they are, there are still bleed over issues that "muck up" the overall sound quality.
We record our jobs (for quality control purposes, as well as to make fun of the vocalists' verbal flubs at the next rehearsal) with a nifty little mini-disk recorder with a stereo condenser microphone. (The mike is boomed out over the front of the group from the trumpet row with a bungee corded tent pole painted flat black; virtually invisible, and it puts the mike in exactly the right place.)
As good as this little setup is, ALL of the recordings are negatively affected by the drum set. Even if the mike is set up to "avoid" the drums, the way that the microphone response to "drumming" still makes the drums far, FAR more prominent than they really were to "live hearing". And, keep in mind that this is with a proper dynamic level for the drums for the live venue.
That's why "live recording" isn't the "gold standard" in the recording industry. There's just too much going on in a live situation to do a "good job" of laying it all down, and the lack of control over factors like the drumming almost condemns the finished product before the echo dies down in the hall.
The recording technique used these days is also a blanket indictment of most rock "musicians". While some (Paul Shaeffer comes to mind here) are the equal of classical folks, most are bumbling wanders adrift in an alien world. With them, multiple takes are the rule, and plugging in each part separately is the norm. Not only can they not speak the common language in many cases (musical notation), they also don't "play well with others".
This is why that many rock groups "lip sync" their public performances. The released recordings are so different from the "actual sound" of the group playing live that fans would storm the stage and demand their money back. So much of many pop groups "sound" is derived from after play processing that a true "live performance" sounds like crap warmed over. Sad perhaps, but you still have to take note of where all the money is going...
And then there's drum machines...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2004-05-27 17:29
Terry,
Thanks, you make some great points! And there's nothing like experience --- speaking of which, here's a data point which reinforces your point about the live recording with drums (a.k.a. percussion): I just recorded our wind ensemble (as I often do), a very good group, using a decent 1/2-track open-reel deck at 7-1/2 ips (I'd like to run 15 ips but I'd run out of tape before intermission!), and a pair of omni mics which are sold as 'acoustic calibration' mics --- hence they have very flat frequency response, but are physically delicate and cannot handle high sound pressure levels. The vast majority of the ensuing recording sounds great to me --- possibly good enough for a commercial CD --- except when the drums/percussion get loud. Then, as you warn, there is some clipping, harmonic distortion, smearing......in other words, mud. If I were to use mics that could handle those high peak SPLs without distortion, I'd either give up the flat frequency response at lower volumes, or have to pay a fortune. All that said, if the hall acoustics are right, it is possible to make a nice-sounding live recording with only two mics and no pre- or post-processing......but all the stars have to fall in alignment.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
