John Pickford continues his recording series with advice on how to record that backbone of the beat: the kick drum…
A great kick drum sound is, of course, the foundation of any modern drum kit recording. Getting it right will help give your track the right feel, whether you're after a killer funky groove or a hard-rocking, driving beat. The first thing to address is the drum itself; no number of fancy mics or techniques will rescue a poor-sounding drum.
Before you begin mic'ing, make sure that the drum is nicely tuned and free of rattles, and have some lubricant handy to deal with squeaky bass drum pedals. Bear in mind that drums are sensitive to changes in room temperature, so leave it to settle before evaluating the sound if the drum has come from a cold storage room into a warm studio.
Bass drums come in various sizes, both in terms of diameter and depth, and this has an enormous impact on the type of sound they will produce.
The most common sizes are 20-22 inches in diameter with a depth of between 14 and 16 inches. These are usually best for most recordings, although great results can be had from smaller drums, often found with jazz kits. Larger kick drums are capable of delivering a deep low-end, but often lack the tightness and punch of standard sizes.
The AKG D112 is a microphone designed specifically for bass drum recording
A common problem with bass drums is excessive boom and ringing. Although much of this can be carefully tuned out, it's often necessary to use some dampening material, such as a blanket or pillow, inside the drum. Depending on the amount of damping required, the material can be placed touching either or both the batter head and resonant (front) head.
Some engineers like to remove the resonant head for recording, enabling easy placement of mics inside the drum. However, this will completely alter the tone of the drum and can result in rattling lugs if the rim is left off. A better compromise is to cut a hole in the resonant head, and these days many heads are available with a pre-cut hole.
Another major contributor to the sound is the type of beater used - a wooden or plastic beater will create a harder sound with more attack than a felt-covered one. Similarly, if a pad is used on the batter head where the beater strikes, a harder material will produce a sound with more click. Once you have got the drum sounding good at source, you can think about microphone types and mic'ing techniques.
There are numerous microphones available designed specifically for bass drum recording, the most famous being the AKG D112. Dedicated bass drum mics are usually voiced to accentuate the desirable tonal aspects of the drum while scooping out some of the less useful lower-mid frequencies.
Dynamic mics are often the first choice for bass drum recording, especially when close-mic'ing techniques are employed, as they can withstand high SPLs. Classic dynamic mics such as the Sennheiser MD 421 and Electro-Voice RE20 are popular choices for recording bass drums, and many great bass drum sounds have been achieved with that brilliant all-rounder, the Shure SM57. Large diaphragm condenser mics are also good for capturing a good low-end response with plenty of weight, and many engineers like to use one in conjunction with a dynamic mic; the Neumann U47 FET is highly regarded as a bass drum mic.
Mic Positioning
There are no hard and fast rules when finding the best mic'ing position, however it's useful to know a few basic techniques and how different locations will accentuate differing aspects of the drum's sound.
If the drum you are recording is fitted with a resonant head without a hole, and presuming that the drummer doesn't want a hole to be cut or the drum head removed, you will be mic'ing externally. It's usually a good idea to angle the mic downwards slightly to get good separation between the bass drum and the rest of the kit.
Of course, if you are recording just the bass drum in isolation - to build a sample library, for example - spillage won't be an issue. When you have access to the inside of the drum, you can experiment with the proximity of the mic in relation to the beater.
Great mics for recording kicks include classic dynamics, such as the Sennheiser MD 421 and Electro-Voice RE20
Positioning the mic close to the beater and on-axis will produce a sound with lots of attack, often at the expense of tone. A good starting point is to place the mic just inside the drum and slightly off-axis, moving in closer if more beater definition is desired.
It's also worth experimenting with the direction of the mic within the drum, as it doesn't necessarily have to point directly towards the batter head. Try pointing the mic towards the drum shell for a sound that is rounder and mellower than pointing straight ahead.
When more than one mic is employed, you can use each one to bring out specific qualities of the drum's tone. A common two-mic method is to have a dynamic mic deep inside the drum to pick up the beater click, with another mic outside the drum to capture a fuller, deeper tone.
Some engineers like to place an external mic several feet away from the drum, an approach that can work well as long as spillage from other instruments - guitar amps for instance - doesn't make this technique problematic. You don't have to limit yourself to mic'ing the drum from the front, though.
Placing a mic at the batter head, pointing towards the beater, can add definition and punch, though not much in the way of low-end heft.
This position wouldn't be ideal as the only bass drum mic, but can really help the drum cut through a mix when used in conjunction with a front mic, especially if the resonant head does not allow for internal mic'ing.
Spending a little time getting the sound right with good mic'ing techniques will go a long way to achieving a great bass drum sound; however, a little EQ is sometimes needed to help the sound along the way. If the drum sounds a bit boxy - a common problem with bass drums - try cutting some low-mids between 300-700Hz. A boost somewhere in the region of 3-5kHz will help bring out the beater click if more bass drum presence is required.
At the top end of the frequency spectrum, the sound can be fine-tuned by rolling off some high frequencies from around 10kHz, as there is little useful information here; this will help minimise any cymbal spillage, as well as creating space for genuine high-frequency sounds in the mix.
One of our recent favourites for drum mic'ing is the Neumann U47 FET remake
A low-end boost around 60-80Hz can add some body to a thin-sounding bass drum if it lacks some low-end weight, but avoid shelving boosts in the 100Hz region, as this can dial in muddiness.
Compressing the bass drum to even out the sound is often useful; try using a medium attack time with a fast release and a ratio between 2:1 and 4:1, aiming for 2-3dB of gain reduction.
Higher ratios and levels of gain reduction can work with highly dynamic drum recordings. For a really driving, rhythmic sound, compress the whole kit and push the bass drum to make the compressor pump in time with the track. Experimenting with the release control is key here to get the pumping rhythm just right. Alternatively, leave the bass drum out of the drum-kit mix-buss to avoid unwanted pumping artefacts.
When mixing the bass drum as part of a whole kit recording, remember that other mics, such as the overheads, will inevitably pick up some bass drum sound, so make sure you make your EQ and compression processes within the context of the kit and not just in isolation. And, as always in any multi-mic situation, check the phase relationship between microphones.
Before reaching for the EQ when trying to rescue a weak-sounding bass drum, invert the phase - you may well find that the sound suddenly becomes more solid and focused.
Finally, unless wacky 1960s-style stereo effects are desired, the bass drum should not be panned to the left or right of the stereo picture. Leave it in the centre, along with the snare drum track and other low-frequency instruments to produce the best foundation for your track.
Step by Step - Single & Double Mic'ing
1: The best starting position for a single-mic technique is to place the mic close to the resonant head, slightly off-axis and angled downwards to achieve some separation. If the drum has a hole cut into it, position the mic just inside the hole for a good balance of attack from the beater and body from the drum itself. This distance also works well when the front head is removed. For more beater definition, move the mic further inside the drum.
2: Double mic'ing will enable a useful blend of beater click and low-end weight. With this set-up, the first mic - preferably a rugged dynamic type - can be placed further inside the drum and aimed at where the beater strikes. The second mic can be placed outside the drum to capture a rounder, full-bodied tone. Large diaphragm condensers are often employed in this role; however, any mic with a good low-end response can be used.
3: Sometimes, placing a mic inside the drum is not an option. In this case, use the first mic on the resonant head with a second mic positioned at the batter head, aiming towards the beater. Common dynamic mics, such as the Shure SM57, work well in this position and allow the first mic to be used further away from the resonant head if desired. Try inverting the phase of one or both of the mics to achieve the most solid sound in the mix.
Step By Step - Isolating the Bass Drum
1: It's a good idea to try to achieve good separation on the bass drum channel, especially if heavy processing is to be carried out. Using a microphone with a cardioid pick-up pattern is the best way to proceed. Position the mic close to the resonant head, pointing slightly downwards to reject sounds from the snare drum, tom toms and cymbals. If the mic can be placed just inside the drum, this will provide a good deal of separation.
2: Consider constructing a drum tunnel. This can be done by draping a thick blanket or duvet over the top of the bass drum, with a couple of small mic stands or other objects of a similar height to the bass drum providing support several feet away. This should be done once the microphones have been suitably positioned. Producer Butch Vig famously built a drum tunnel from several bass drum shells when recording Nirvana's classic Nevermind album.
3: Once your drum track has been recorded, the bass drum can be tightened up and isolated from other sounds by making use of a noise gate. Setting up noise gates can be tricky, so it's usually best to record the track without a gate, in case a weak bass drum strike fails to open the gate and is not recorded. Leave gating until mixing. Once the bass drum track is separated, EQ and dynamic processing will not affect other elements of the drum track.
Thursday, 21 July 2016
Recording Jimmy Page, Ritchie Blackmore & Steve Howe
Joe Meek had engineered dozens of hits for major labels in state-of-the-art London studios by the time he went independent in 1960. Along the way, he had learned the correct” techniques for recording everything from pop groups to jazz combos to full orchestras, while simultaneously gaining a reputation for successfully subverting those techniques at every opportunity.
Meek placed microphones directly on sources, intentionally distorted preamp inputs, pushed tape signals into the red, soaked sounds in echo, and pumped up nearly everything with compressors—techniques that became commonplace years later, but that drove the white-coated house engineers crazy.
A handful of recording mavericks had run independent studios in the United States since the '40s, but Meek was England's first truly independent engineer, producer, and home” studio operator, and between 1960 and 1967, he recorded thousands of songs bearing his unmistakable sonic signature—including the worldwide mega-hit Telstar” in 1962.
Guitars played a huge role in the music Meek recorded, and some of England's best guitarists played on his sessions, including Big Jim” Sullivan, Steve Howe, Roger Hall, Peter Miller, Jimmy Page, and Ritchie Blackmore, who was Meek's first-call guitarist between 1962 and 1965.
Guitarists typically used Vox AC30s, which Meek recorded by placing an AKG D19 dynamic microphone on the grille, and covering the amp with a heavy blanket to contain the sound.
Before the signal made it to tape, however, it could be routed through lots of devices, including Meek's black box” spring reverb (built in 1957), compressors modified for maximum squash, a reel-to-reel used for slap delay, an echo chamber in a room above the studio, and an RCA Orthophonic” tube preamp that could be overdriven into extreme distortion.
Recorded sounds could then be messed with further by manipulating the tape speed to change tempo and pitch, making the tape play in reverse, etc. Meek may even have used tape flanging as early as 1958.
Many of Meek's recordings feature heavily distorted guitar tones that would have given the teenage Hendrix pause, beginning with the supersaturated pedal-steel sound on the Blue Men's The Bublight” (1959), through to the ultra-fuzzy riff on Jason Eddie & the Centremen's Singing the Blues” (1966), which also sported a truly bizarre run-away-delay part.
Other startlingly cool Meek guitar sounds include the heavily modulated twang on the Moontrekkers' Night of the Vampire” (1961), the spacey surf and palm-mute echo effects on the Packabeats' The Traitors Theme” (1962), the double-speed octave/delays on the Saints' Midgets” (1963), the flanged clean tones on the Blue Rondos' I Don't Want Your Loving No More” (1965), and Blackmore's stinging solo tones on the Outlaws' Keep A Knockin'” and Shake With Me” (1964).
On the latter, Meek demonstrated yet another valuable production strategy: Joe said that he wanted me to go crazy on the solo and play with complete abandon,” remembers Blackmore. I just played as many notes as possible that were vaguely relative and it worked. The solo had more feeling than you get on most sessions, and Jeff Beck told me that when he played it for Hendrix in 1967, Jimi wanted to know who it was.”
Meek placed microphones directly on sources, intentionally distorted preamp inputs, pushed tape signals into the red, soaked sounds in echo, and pumped up nearly everything with compressors—techniques that became commonplace years later, but that drove the white-coated house engineers crazy.
A handful of recording mavericks had run independent studios in the United States since the '40s, but Meek was England's first truly independent engineer, producer, and home” studio operator, and between 1960 and 1967, he recorded thousands of songs bearing his unmistakable sonic signature—including the worldwide mega-hit Telstar” in 1962.
Guitars played a huge role in the music Meek recorded, and some of England's best guitarists played on his sessions, including Big Jim” Sullivan, Steve Howe, Roger Hall, Peter Miller, Jimmy Page, and Ritchie Blackmore, who was Meek's first-call guitarist between 1962 and 1965.
Guitarists typically used Vox AC30s, which Meek recorded by placing an AKG D19 dynamic microphone on the grille, and covering the amp with a heavy blanket to contain the sound.
Before the signal made it to tape, however, it could be routed through lots of devices, including Meek's black box” spring reverb (built in 1957), compressors modified for maximum squash, a reel-to-reel used for slap delay, an echo chamber in a room above the studio, and an RCA Orthophonic” tube preamp that could be overdriven into extreme distortion.
Recorded sounds could then be messed with further by manipulating the tape speed to change tempo and pitch, making the tape play in reverse, etc. Meek may even have used tape flanging as early as 1958.
Many of Meek's recordings feature heavily distorted guitar tones that would have given the teenage Hendrix pause, beginning with the supersaturated pedal-steel sound on the Blue Men's The Bublight” (1959), through to the ultra-fuzzy riff on Jason Eddie & the Centremen's Singing the Blues” (1966), which also sported a truly bizarre run-away-delay part.
Other startlingly cool Meek guitar sounds include the heavily modulated twang on the Moontrekkers' Night of the Vampire” (1961), the spacey surf and palm-mute echo effects on the Packabeats' The Traitors Theme” (1962), the double-speed octave/delays on the Saints' Midgets” (1963), the flanged clean tones on the Blue Rondos' I Don't Want Your Loving No More” (1965), and Blackmore's stinging solo tones on the Outlaws' Keep A Knockin'” and Shake With Me” (1964).
On the latter, Meek demonstrated yet another valuable production strategy: Joe said that he wanted me to go crazy on the solo and play with complete abandon,” remembers Blackmore. I just played as many notes as possible that were vaguely relative and it worked. The solo had more feeling than you get on most sessions, and Jeff Beck told me that when he played it for Hendrix in 1967, Jimi wanted to know who it was.”
Microphone Practice
There exist a number of well-developed microphone techniques used for miking musical, film, or voice sources. Choice of technique depends on a number of factors, including:
The collection of extraneous noise. This can be a concern, especially in amplified performances, where audio feedback can be a significant problem. Alternatively, it can be a desired outcome, in situations where ambient noise is useful (hall reverberation, audience reaction).
Choice of a signal type: Mono , stereo or multi-channel.
Type of sound-source: Acoustic instruments produce a sound very different from electric instruments, which are again different from the human voice.
Situational circumstances: Sometimes a microphone should not be visible, or having a microphone nearby is not appropriate. In scenes for a movie the microphone may be held above the pictureframe, just out of sight. In this way there is always a certain distance between the actor and the microphone.
Processing: If the signal is destined to be heavily processed, or "mixed down", a different type of input may be required.
The use of a windshield as well as a pop shield , designed to reduce vocal plosives.
There are several classes of microphone placement for recording and amplification.
In close miking, a microphone is placed relatively close to an instrument or sound source, within three to twelve inches, producing a dry or non-reverberant sound. 1 This serves to reduce extraneous noise, including room reverberation, and is commonly used when attempting to record a number of separate instruments while keeping the signals separate, or when trying to avoid feedback in an amplified performance. Close miking often affects the frequency response of the microphone, especially for directional mics which exhibit bass boost from the proximity effect Ubiquitous in the tracking of instruments used in pop and popular music , examples of close-mic vocal tracks include many songs on Elliott Smith 's Elliott Smith and Either/Or , Lily Allen 's " The Fear ", the chorus of Fergie 's " Glamorous ", Imogen Heap 's lead on " Hide and Seek ", and Madonna 's spoken verses on " Erotica ". 2
In ambient or distant miking, a microphone — typically a sensitive one — is placed at some distance from the sound source. The goal of this technique is to get a broader, natural mix of the sound source or sources, along with ambient sound, including reverberation from the room or hall. Example include The Jesus and Mary Chain 's Psychocandy (excepting the vocals), Robert Plant 's vocals on songs from Physical Graffiti , Tom Waits 's lead vocals on his "junkyard" records, and Mick Jagger 's lead-vocals on songs from Exile On Main Street 3
In room miking a distant mic, referred to as the room mic, is used in conjunction with a close mic, "typically placed far enough past the critical distance in a room that the room's ambience and reverberations transduce at an equivalent, if not greater, volume than the sound source itself." 4 Ubiquitous in pop, it is the industry standard for tracking rhythm guitars in rock. A "celebrated" example is the rhythm guitar on Led Zeppelin 's " Communication Breakdown " 4 while other examples include John Frusciante 's electric guitar parts on BloodSugarSexMagik , Noel Gallagher 's lead-guitar on " Champagne Supernova ", and Billy Corgan 's guitar on " Cherub Rock ", " Today ", " Bullet With Butterfly Wings ", " Zero ", and " Fuck You (An Ode To No One) ". 5
Accent (or Spot) Microphone Placement. Often, the tonal and ambient qualities will sound very different between a distant- and close-miked pickup. Under certain circumstances, it's difficult to obtain a naturally recorded balance when mixing the two together. For example, if a solo instrument within an orchestra needs an extra mic for added volume and presence, placing the mic too close would result in a pickup that sounds overly present, unnatural and out of context with the distant, overall orchestral pickup. To avoid this pitfall, a compromise in distance should be struck. A microphone that has been placed within a reasonably close range to an instrument or section within a larger ensemble (but not so close as to have an unnatural sound) is known as an accent (or spot) pickup Whenever accent miking is used, care should be exercised in placement and pickup choices. The amount of accent signal that's introduced into the mix should sound natural relative to the overall pickup, and a good accent mic should only add presence to a solo passage and not stick out as separate, identifiable pickup. 6 7 8
Often each instrument or vocalist is miked separately, with one or more microphones recording to separate channels (tracks). At a later stage, the channels are combined ('mixed-down') to two channels for stereo or more for surround sound The artists need not perform in the same place at the same time, and individual tracks (or sections of tracks) can be re-recorded to correct errors. Generally effects such as reverberation are added to each recorded channel, and different levels sent to left and right final channels to position the artist in the stereo sound-stage. Microphones may also be used to record the overall effect, or just the effect of the performance room.
This permits greater control over the final sound, but recording two channels (stereo recording) is simpler and cheaper, and can give a sound that is more natural.
There are two features of sound that the human brain uses to place objects in the stereo sound-field between the loudspeakers. These are the relative level (or loudness) difference between the two channels Δ L, and the time delay difference in arrival times for the same sound in each channel Δ t. The "interaural" signals (binaural ILD and ITD) at the ears are not the stereo microphone signals which are coming from the loudspeakers, and are called "interchannel" signals (Δ L and Δ t). These signals are normally not mixed. Loudspeaker signals are different from the sound arriving at the ear. See the article " Binaural recording for earphones ".
Various methods of stereo recording edit
X-Y technique: intensity stereophony edit
XY Stereo
Here there are two directional microphones at the same place, and typically placed at 90° or more to each other. 9 A stereo effect is achieved through differences in sound pressure level between two microphones. Due to the lack of differences in time-of-arrival and phase ambiguities, the sonic characteristic of X-Y recordings is generally less "spacey" and has less depth compared to recordings employing an AB setup.
Blumlein Stereo
When the microphones are bidirectional and placed facing +-45° with respect to the sound source, the X-Y-setup is called a Blumlein Pair The sonic image produced by this configuration is considered by many authorities to create a realistic, almost holographic soundstage.
A further refinement of the Blumlein Pair was developed by EMI in 1958, who called it "Stereosonic". They added a little in-phase crosstalk above 700 Hz to better align the mid and treble phantom sources with the bass ones. 10
A-B technique: time-of-arrival stereophony edit
This technique uses two parallel microphones, typically omnidirectional, some distance apart, capturing time-of-arrival stereo information as well as some level (amplitude) difference information, especially if employed close to the sound source(s). At a distance of about 50 cm (0.5 m) the time delay for a signal reaching first one and then the other microphone from the side is approximately 1.5 ms (1 to 2 ms). If the distance is increased between the microphones it effectively decreases the pickup angle. At 70 cm distance it is about equivalent to the pickup angle of the near-coincident ORTF setup.
M/S technique: Mid/Side stereophony edit
Mid-Side Stereo
This coincident technique employs a bidirectional microphone (with a Figure of 8 polar pattern) facing sideways and a cardioid (generally a variety of cardioid, although Alan Blumlein described the usage of an omnidirectional transducer in his original patent) facing the sound source. The capsules are stacked vertically and brought together as closely as possible, to minimize comb filtering caused by differences in arrival time.
The left and right channels are produced through a simple matrix: Left = Mid + Side, Right = Mid − Side ("minus" means you add the side signal with the polarity reversed). This configuration produces a completely mono-compatible signal and, if the Mid and Side signals are recorded (rather than the matrixed Left and Right), the stereo width (and with that, the perceived distance of the sound source) can be manipulated after the recording has taken place.
Jecklin Disk technique edit
The Jecklin Disk technique is similar to A/B recording, with 2 omni-directional microphones at 36 cm apart from each other. A sound absorbing Jecklin disk of 35cm is placed in the middle between the two microphones. The disk makes the apparent separation between the mics much larger than an equivalent A/B recording.
Choosing a technique edit
If a stereo signal is to be reproduced in mono, out-of-phase parts of the signal will cancel, which may cause the unwanted reduction or loss of some parts of the signal. This can be an important factor in choosing which technique to use.
Since the A-B techniques use phase differences to give the stereo image, they are the least compatible with mono.
Jecklin disk has a relatively small distance between the mics. Frequencies coming in sideways can reach only one microphone and will not interfere. Therefore Jecklin disk works reasonably well when converted to mono. Jecklin disk also gives phase shifts and amplitude differences matching good with what a real pair of ears would hear at this position and therefore is well suited for headphone playback.
In the X-Y techniques, the microphones would ideally be in exactly the same place, which is not possible - if they are slightly separated left to right, there may be some loss of high frequencies when played back in mono, so they are often separated vertically. This only causes problems with sound from above or below the height of the microphones.
The M/S technique is ideal for mono compatibility, since summing Left+Right just gives the Mid signal back.
The equipment for the techniques also varies from the bulky to the small and convenient. A-B techniques generally use two separate microphone units, often mounted on a bar to define the separation. X-Y microphone capsules can be mounted in one unit, or even on the top of a handheld digital recorder.
M/S arrays can be very compact and fit easily into a standard blimp windscreen, which makes boom-operated stereo recordings possible. They provide a variable soundstage width to match a zoom lens , which can be manipulated in post-production. This makes M/S is a very popular stereo technique for film location recording. They are often used in small 'pencil microphones' to mount on video cameras, sometimes even coupled to the zoom.
The collection of extraneous noise. This can be a concern, especially in amplified performances, where audio feedback can be a significant problem. Alternatively, it can be a desired outcome, in situations where ambient noise is useful (hall reverberation, audience reaction).
Choice of a signal type: Mono , stereo or multi-channel.
Type of sound-source: Acoustic instruments produce a sound very different from electric instruments, which are again different from the human voice.
Situational circumstances: Sometimes a microphone should not be visible, or having a microphone nearby is not appropriate. In scenes for a movie the microphone may be held above the pictureframe, just out of sight. In this way there is always a certain distance between the actor and the microphone.
Processing: If the signal is destined to be heavily processed, or "mixed down", a different type of input may be required.
The use of a windshield as well as a pop shield , designed to reduce vocal plosives.
There are several classes of microphone placement for recording and amplification.
In close miking, a microphone is placed relatively close to an instrument or sound source, within three to twelve inches, producing a dry or non-reverberant sound. 1 This serves to reduce extraneous noise, including room reverberation, and is commonly used when attempting to record a number of separate instruments while keeping the signals separate, or when trying to avoid feedback in an amplified performance. Close miking often affects the frequency response of the microphone, especially for directional mics which exhibit bass boost from the proximity effect Ubiquitous in the tracking of instruments used in pop and popular music , examples of close-mic vocal tracks include many songs on Elliott Smith 's Elliott Smith and Either/Or , Lily Allen 's " The Fear ", the chorus of Fergie 's " Glamorous ", Imogen Heap 's lead on " Hide and Seek ", and Madonna 's spoken verses on " Erotica ". 2
In ambient or distant miking, a microphone — typically a sensitive one — is placed at some distance from the sound source. The goal of this technique is to get a broader, natural mix of the sound source or sources, along with ambient sound, including reverberation from the room or hall. Example include The Jesus and Mary Chain 's Psychocandy (excepting the vocals), Robert Plant 's vocals on songs from Physical Graffiti , Tom Waits 's lead vocals on his "junkyard" records, and Mick Jagger 's lead-vocals on songs from Exile On Main Street 3
In room miking a distant mic, referred to as the room mic, is used in conjunction with a close mic, "typically placed far enough past the critical distance in a room that the room's ambience and reverberations transduce at an equivalent, if not greater, volume than the sound source itself." 4 Ubiquitous in pop, it is the industry standard for tracking rhythm guitars in rock. A "celebrated" example is the rhythm guitar on Led Zeppelin 's " Communication Breakdown " 4 while other examples include John Frusciante 's electric guitar parts on BloodSugarSexMagik , Noel Gallagher 's lead-guitar on " Champagne Supernova ", and Billy Corgan 's guitar on " Cherub Rock ", " Today ", " Bullet With Butterfly Wings ", " Zero ", and " Fuck You (An Ode To No One) ". 5
Accent (or Spot) Microphone Placement. Often, the tonal and ambient qualities will sound very different between a distant- and close-miked pickup. Under certain circumstances, it's difficult to obtain a naturally recorded balance when mixing the two together. For example, if a solo instrument within an orchestra needs an extra mic for added volume and presence, placing the mic too close would result in a pickup that sounds overly present, unnatural and out of context with the distant, overall orchestral pickup. To avoid this pitfall, a compromise in distance should be struck. A microphone that has been placed within a reasonably close range to an instrument or section within a larger ensemble (but not so close as to have an unnatural sound) is known as an accent (or spot) pickup Whenever accent miking is used, care should be exercised in placement and pickup choices. The amount of accent signal that's introduced into the mix should sound natural relative to the overall pickup, and a good accent mic should only add presence to a solo passage and not stick out as separate, identifiable pickup. 6 7 8
Often each instrument or vocalist is miked separately, with one or more microphones recording to separate channels (tracks). At a later stage, the channels are combined ('mixed-down') to two channels for stereo or more for surround sound The artists need not perform in the same place at the same time, and individual tracks (or sections of tracks) can be re-recorded to correct errors. Generally effects such as reverberation are added to each recorded channel, and different levels sent to left and right final channels to position the artist in the stereo sound-stage. Microphones may also be used to record the overall effect, or just the effect of the performance room.
This permits greater control over the final sound, but recording two channels (stereo recording) is simpler and cheaper, and can give a sound that is more natural.
There are two features of sound that the human brain uses to place objects in the stereo sound-field between the loudspeakers. These are the relative level (or loudness) difference between the two channels Δ L, and the time delay difference in arrival times for the same sound in each channel Δ t. The "interaural" signals (binaural ILD and ITD) at the ears are not the stereo microphone signals which are coming from the loudspeakers, and are called "interchannel" signals (Δ L and Δ t). These signals are normally not mixed. Loudspeaker signals are different from the sound arriving at the ear. See the article " Binaural recording for earphones ".
Various methods of stereo recording edit
X-Y technique: intensity stereophony edit
XY Stereo
Here there are two directional microphones at the same place, and typically placed at 90° or more to each other. 9 A stereo effect is achieved through differences in sound pressure level between two microphones. Due to the lack of differences in time-of-arrival and phase ambiguities, the sonic characteristic of X-Y recordings is generally less "spacey" and has less depth compared to recordings employing an AB setup.
Blumlein Stereo
When the microphones are bidirectional and placed facing +-45° with respect to the sound source, the X-Y-setup is called a Blumlein Pair The sonic image produced by this configuration is considered by many authorities to create a realistic, almost holographic soundstage.
A further refinement of the Blumlein Pair was developed by EMI in 1958, who called it "Stereosonic". They added a little in-phase crosstalk above 700 Hz to better align the mid and treble phantom sources with the bass ones. 10
A-B technique: time-of-arrival stereophony edit
This technique uses two parallel microphones, typically omnidirectional, some distance apart, capturing time-of-arrival stereo information as well as some level (amplitude) difference information, especially if employed close to the sound source(s). At a distance of about 50 cm (0.5 m) the time delay for a signal reaching first one and then the other microphone from the side is approximately 1.5 ms (1 to 2 ms). If the distance is increased between the microphones it effectively decreases the pickup angle. At 70 cm distance it is about equivalent to the pickup angle of the near-coincident ORTF setup.
M/S technique: Mid/Side stereophony edit
Mid-Side Stereo
This coincident technique employs a bidirectional microphone (with a Figure of 8 polar pattern) facing sideways and a cardioid (generally a variety of cardioid, although Alan Blumlein described the usage of an omnidirectional transducer in his original patent) facing the sound source. The capsules are stacked vertically and brought together as closely as possible, to minimize comb filtering caused by differences in arrival time.
The left and right channels are produced through a simple matrix: Left = Mid + Side, Right = Mid − Side ("minus" means you add the side signal with the polarity reversed). This configuration produces a completely mono-compatible signal and, if the Mid and Side signals are recorded (rather than the matrixed Left and Right), the stereo width (and with that, the perceived distance of the sound source) can be manipulated after the recording has taken place.
Jecklin Disk technique edit
The Jecklin Disk technique is similar to A/B recording, with 2 omni-directional microphones at 36 cm apart from each other. A sound absorbing Jecklin disk of 35cm is placed in the middle between the two microphones. The disk makes the apparent separation between the mics much larger than an equivalent A/B recording.
Choosing a technique edit
If a stereo signal is to be reproduced in mono, out-of-phase parts of the signal will cancel, which may cause the unwanted reduction or loss of some parts of the signal. This can be an important factor in choosing which technique to use.
Since the A-B techniques use phase differences to give the stereo image, they are the least compatible with mono.
Jecklin disk has a relatively small distance between the mics. Frequencies coming in sideways can reach only one microphone and will not interfere. Therefore Jecklin disk works reasonably well when converted to mono. Jecklin disk also gives phase shifts and amplitude differences matching good with what a real pair of ears would hear at this position and therefore is well suited for headphone playback.
In the X-Y techniques, the microphones would ideally be in exactly the same place, which is not possible - if they are slightly separated left to right, there may be some loss of high frequencies when played back in mono, so they are often separated vertically. This only causes problems with sound from above or below the height of the microphones.
The M/S technique is ideal for mono compatibility, since summing Left+Right just gives the Mid signal back.
The equipment for the techniques also varies from the bulky to the small and convenient. A-B techniques generally use two separate microphone units, often mounted on a bar to define the separation. X-Y microphone capsules can be mounted in one unit, or even on the top of a handheld digital recorder.
M/S arrays can be very compact and fit easily into a standard blimp windscreen, which makes boom-operated stereo recordings possible. They provide a variable soundstage width to match a zoom lens , which can be manipulated in post-production. This makes M/S is a very popular stereo technique for film location recording. They are often used in small 'pencil microphones' to mount on video cameras, sometimes even coupled to the zoom.
Wednesday, 20 July 2016
Use Of Compressor On Early Records Music And Technology
I greatly appreciate this site. It is such a treat to be able to speak to experienced and knowledgeable mixers.
Question: I know technology in the recording field has come far in the last 40 years, but compressors were around in the 60's yet you do not hear the punch” on those records like you do now.
I know some of the limitation was probably format (analogue vs digital), but was the compressor not used to punch up instruments” (give them more presence and punch) because it wasn't in vogue” at the time or was it simply that analogue tape couldn't handle the increased dynamics?
Or was it because being pressed to vinyl” the dynamic range would make the stylus jump out of the groove? and therefore the compressor was used more to limit” the sound?
Along this line, who was the first engineer to really punch up the bottom? What was the earliest records (that shows my age) CDs/tapes, etc…that this shows up in? Was using the compressor to punch up the bottom a chance discovery or was it known all the time but technology limited its use in this way?
I know this is probably an involved question and involved answer, and so let me tell you up front how much I appreciate your time answering this.
I guess you need to define what you mean by punch” when referring to more modern records. I think that perhaps you are confusing shear volume (loudness) for punch. But, in my mind, punch” is different from loudness, and are not necessarily terms that go this modern digital age we are certainly suffering from the negative aspects of the loudness wars”. Just do a Google search for loudness wars” if you aren't up on what that means, and you'll find enough reading to keep you busy for a long the untrained ear”, louder and brighter always sounds better”… at least at first quick listen. But, the problem with today's music is that, in an effort to make each release louder than every other release, music has been compressed and peak limited to death, resulting in very loud and harsh CDs (and MP3s) that are generally fatiguing to listen to for any extended amount of time. Yet, people think they sound better” because they are so much louder, and our ears are very easily might also think of this general loudness as being punchy”, when in reality it's just LOUD and all the dynamics have been totally removed from the music. In my mind, in order to have true punch” there needs to be dynamics and contrast between loud and soft. Also, punch is all about transients and peaks, which are generally squashed away and removed as much as possible when trying to make digital audio as loud as possible.
While it may be true that analog tape killed some transients in the old days, and possibly degraded the punch” of the audio a bit, it is certainly not nearly as bad as what people are doing in mastering these days in an effort to make their music louder than everything else.
In fact, I bet if you take some older recordings from the 60s and 70s, and simply turned up the volume on your stereo, and matched the listening level of them to a current production, the older music would sound MUCH MUCH better and more punchy than the modern stuff. You just have to get it up to the same volume level… If you match the volume levels with the volume control on your stereo, the music will sound much better because it still retains all the dynamics and transients and true punch that has been squashed out of the modern music.
Yes… compressors have been around for a long time, and if used properly you can use them to increase the overall average volume of a track, but, in general, compressors are reducing the dynamic range, and usually squashing some of the transients as well, thus reducing the punch” instead of adding more punch. We just think it sounds punchier because you can make the average volume louder by using a compressor. You can use a slower attack setting to allow more of the attack transients through, and play around with settings to make it pump a bit more, which can sometimes sound like it's more punchy as well. But, in general, I think compressors just make things louder, but not punchier.
Originally, compressors were invented to help deal with the limited dynamic range of analog tape, as well as vinyl. You had to reduce the dynamic range of the audio so that you could raise the overall volume and keep it well above the noise floor of the tape, while at the same time taming those attack transients and the overall level so that you didn't saturate and distort the tape. When mastering, you had to sometimes do more compression and limiting to keep the levels within the range that you could fit on vinyl without the needle jumping out of the groove, etc…
Of course, engineers quickly learned that compressors could be used for more than just taming levels and compressing dynamics. They each had their own sound that could be used to color” the audio passing through it, and could also be driven hard and abused to achieve certain types of sounds.
Back then, though, technology was still analog, and there was only so much you could do with it. Things didn't start to become REALLY LOUD until we entered the digital world and the peak limiter was invented (the Waves L1 being the first very popular software limiter). These digital limiters could look ahead” and see big transient peaks coming, and then act accordingly to round them off and reduce their level so that the average RMS level of the audio could be greatly increased without clipping the digital signal. Of course, it created nasty sounding artifacts if driven too hard, but people loved it because we could make music so much louder than we ever could before.
Peak limiting, and other techniques for making things loud, has been getting better and better over the years (or worse, depending on your viewpoint), and so the average loudness of CDs has steadily increased since the 70s, and the dynamic range of music has likewise steadily decreased.
So, probably didn't exactly answer your question, and used it to rant a bit about the loudness wars, but I think you get the general idea. I couldn't tell you who was the first to use a compressor to punch” things up. I think it's been a gradual progression since compressors were invented, and a more rapid progression since digital peak limiting was invented. Again, though, I don't think of this increased loudness as punch”.
Thanks for the response. I didn't mean to hit a sore spot, but truthfully, your response was interesting in many ways.I've taken some of the recordings from the 60's and 70's and have turned up the volume” in order to compare recordings from then to more current seems the bottom end on newer recordings are much more pronounced and clearer. For example, compare the bottom end to an early Beatles' song like I Saw Her Standing There,” a personal favorite of mine, and then compare the bottom end to something like the Pretenders' My
City Is Gone.”Both songs are excellent, well-played and recorded, both by excellent bands recorded in top notch studios by talented engineers. Yet the difference is stunning.
The bottom end of the Pretenders song is full, well-rounded and punchy”…the bottom end of the Beatles' song is excellent, rocking and moving, but doesn't have the volume or the punch” of the Pretenders.
Now, 30+ years separate the dateline of the recordings and format is different I'm sure.
But technically speaking, was a compressor used on the bottom end of the Beatles' recording differently than that of the Pretenders?
And even if you crank up the Beatles' song (which I have often), the bottom end is very different.
I'm guessing that compressor technology had greatly improved during that period of time, but it is much more than just volume.
It seems to be more of a frame of mind or attitude about the use of the compressor. Or maybe just the technology.
I don't know. I was hoping that you might provide a little insight into the matter.
I am familiar with the whole Loudness Wars” debate and much prefer, at least personally, to the recordings from the 60's and 70's as a whole. The sound and color are more pleasing and interesting to me.
Anyway, I love both of the aforementioned bands and this message was not meant as a criticism of either the bands or the engineers/producers working with them - they are all great!
My question was more about the use of the compressor and changes in attitudes that may have occurred with engineers, producers, etc… and whether or not the technology existed back in 1963 when the Beatles were recording on their 4 track machine or was it simply not something that anyone had tried, thought to try, or technologically not possible (or a combination of all of those things).
Again, thank you for your time. I really find your responses informative.
No problems… that helps clarify what you are asking about you're talking specifically about the bottom end, and bass in particular, I don't think it really has to do with compressors.
The most coveted compressors these days are still some of the oldest. Fairchild, 1176, LA2A are all classic compressors that have been around for a long time, and are still copied and even emulated with plug-ins today. Compressor technology really hasn't evolved enough over the years for that to be the difference you are hearing.I believe it's simply more of a progression of the recording medium and the enhanced techniques allowed as recording technology improved.
Using your example of classic Beatles' songs… those were recorded back when they had only 2 tracks to begin with, and then later on 3 or 4 tracks. They also had a limited number of channels on the console and a limited amount of processing gear. Many instruments had to be recorded and mixed together on the fly to a single track, and then the tracks were often bounced to free up additional tracks. Bouncing certainly degrades the low end and high-end, and having to record many instruments at once didn't leave for much flexibility when it came time to mix. Of course, the real mixing was done during the actual recording since so many instruments were mixed together onto one track, and there wasn't much mixing to be done with only 2 or 4 tracks at the end.
As technology progressed, there were a lot more tracks to work with, so the bass could live on its own track until the mixing stage, and not have to be bounced several times, or pre-mixed with several other instruments onto one track. That gives you a LOT more flexibility in shaping the tone of the bass and making sure it cuts through in the final mix. Plus, not having to bounce the tracks definitely will preserve much of the original punch of the track.
Finally, I think a lot of it is simply a change in style over the years. I think in the older days of music, the rhythm instruments were much more of a background type of role and not meant to be as up front and punchy as we like them today. Over time, the drums and bass have become a much more dominant force in the songs, and they are simply mixed to be much more up front and punchy. I really don't believe it has anything to do with compressor technology specifically… just a change of attitude, and a lot more tracks to work with to enable much more flexibility in the final mix.
Of course, these days with computers, you don't have to worry about generation loss due to bouncing, or even degrading the signal by repeated playback of the tape. Back in the old days of analog tape, every time you played the tape, the signal would degrade a bit more as more oxide was scraped off the tape by the tape heads. Especially for bands like the Beatles that were very creative in the studio, there was a lot of bouncing and a lot of playing of the tape over and over, and so their recorded signals probably suffered more than other bands of the time.
There was some interesting notes from Bruce Swedien about how he used multiple reels of tape and multiple machines when working with Michael Jackson. He would fill up a tape with tracks and then immediately make a reference onto another tape on another machine (with a timecode track for synchronization also) and then put the original tape away and never play it again until time to mix. That's one of the things he says made those recordings and mixes sound so good - because there wasn't all the signal degradation from repeated playback of the tapes. Also, he is strongly against the use of compression in general, as he believes it destroys too much of the transients and the punch” of the audio, and that people use it too much as a crutch these days. He claims that not using compression is another reason why those recordings sound so good. Something to check out anyway. He had a whole section devoted to questions and answers on the forum a while back:
Also some great articles in recent trade magazines, and his book Make Mine Music” is also a great read!
Steve - thank you for answer. Very informative. That's the information I was looking for.
Question: I know technology in the recording field has come far in the last 40 years, but compressors were around in the 60's yet you do not hear the punch” on those records like you do now.
I know some of the limitation was probably format (analogue vs digital), but was the compressor not used to punch up instruments” (give them more presence and punch) because it wasn't in vogue” at the time or was it simply that analogue tape couldn't handle the increased dynamics?
Or was it because being pressed to vinyl” the dynamic range would make the stylus jump out of the groove? and therefore the compressor was used more to limit” the sound?
Along this line, who was the first engineer to really punch up the bottom? What was the earliest records (that shows my age) CDs/tapes, etc…that this shows up in? Was using the compressor to punch up the bottom a chance discovery or was it known all the time but technology limited its use in this way?
I know this is probably an involved question and involved answer, and so let me tell you up front how much I appreciate your time answering this.
I guess you need to define what you mean by punch” when referring to more modern records. I think that perhaps you are confusing shear volume (loudness) for punch. But, in my mind, punch” is different from loudness, and are not necessarily terms that go this modern digital age we are certainly suffering from the negative aspects of the loudness wars”. Just do a Google search for loudness wars” if you aren't up on what that means, and you'll find enough reading to keep you busy for a long the untrained ear”, louder and brighter always sounds better”… at least at first quick listen. But, the problem with today's music is that, in an effort to make each release louder than every other release, music has been compressed and peak limited to death, resulting in very loud and harsh CDs (and MP3s) that are generally fatiguing to listen to for any extended amount of time. Yet, people think they sound better” because they are so much louder, and our ears are very easily might also think of this general loudness as being punchy”, when in reality it's just LOUD and all the dynamics have been totally removed from the music. In my mind, in order to have true punch” there needs to be dynamics and contrast between loud and soft. Also, punch is all about transients and peaks, which are generally squashed away and removed as much as possible when trying to make digital audio as loud as possible.
While it may be true that analog tape killed some transients in the old days, and possibly degraded the punch” of the audio a bit, it is certainly not nearly as bad as what people are doing in mastering these days in an effort to make their music louder than everything else.
In fact, I bet if you take some older recordings from the 60s and 70s, and simply turned up the volume on your stereo, and matched the listening level of them to a current production, the older music would sound MUCH MUCH better and more punchy than the modern stuff. You just have to get it up to the same volume level… If you match the volume levels with the volume control on your stereo, the music will sound much better because it still retains all the dynamics and transients and true punch that has been squashed out of the modern music.
Yes… compressors have been around for a long time, and if used properly you can use them to increase the overall average volume of a track, but, in general, compressors are reducing the dynamic range, and usually squashing some of the transients as well, thus reducing the punch” instead of adding more punch. We just think it sounds punchier because you can make the average volume louder by using a compressor. You can use a slower attack setting to allow more of the attack transients through, and play around with settings to make it pump a bit more, which can sometimes sound like it's more punchy as well. But, in general, I think compressors just make things louder, but not punchier.
Originally, compressors were invented to help deal with the limited dynamic range of analog tape, as well as vinyl. You had to reduce the dynamic range of the audio so that you could raise the overall volume and keep it well above the noise floor of the tape, while at the same time taming those attack transients and the overall level so that you didn't saturate and distort the tape. When mastering, you had to sometimes do more compression and limiting to keep the levels within the range that you could fit on vinyl without the needle jumping out of the groove, etc…
Of course, engineers quickly learned that compressors could be used for more than just taming levels and compressing dynamics. They each had their own sound that could be used to color” the audio passing through it, and could also be driven hard and abused to achieve certain types of sounds.
Back then, though, technology was still analog, and there was only so much you could do with it. Things didn't start to become REALLY LOUD until we entered the digital world and the peak limiter was invented (the Waves L1 being the first very popular software limiter). These digital limiters could look ahead” and see big transient peaks coming, and then act accordingly to round them off and reduce their level so that the average RMS level of the audio could be greatly increased without clipping the digital signal. Of course, it created nasty sounding artifacts if driven too hard, but people loved it because we could make music so much louder than we ever could before.
Peak limiting, and other techniques for making things loud, has been getting better and better over the years (or worse, depending on your viewpoint), and so the average loudness of CDs has steadily increased since the 70s, and the dynamic range of music has likewise steadily decreased.
So, probably didn't exactly answer your question, and used it to rant a bit about the loudness wars, but I think you get the general idea. I couldn't tell you who was the first to use a compressor to punch” things up. I think it's been a gradual progression since compressors were invented, and a more rapid progression since digital peak limiting was invented. Again, though, I don't think of this increased loudness as punch”.
Thanks for the response. I didn't mean to hit a sore spot, but truthfully, your response was interesting in many ways.I've taken some of the recordings from the 60's and 70's and have turned up the volume” in order to compare recordings from then to more current seems the bottom end on newer recordings are much more pronounced and clearer. For example, compare the bottom end to an early Beatles' song like I Saw Her Standing There,” a personal favorite of mine, and then compare the bottom end to something like the Pretenders' My
City Is Gone.”Both songs are excellent, well-played and recorded, both by excellent bands recorded in top notch studios by talented engineers. Yet the difference is stunning.
The bottom end of the Pretenders song is full, well-rounded and punchy”…the bottom end of the Beatles' song is excellent, rocking and moving, but doesn't have the volume or the punch” of the Pretenders.
Now, 30+ years separate the dateline of the recordings and format is different I'm sure.
But technically speaking, was a compressor used on the bottom end of the Beatles' recording differently than that of the Pretenders?
And even if you crank up the Beatles' song (which I have often), the bottom end is very different.
I'm guessing that compressor technology had greatly improved during that period of time, but it is much more than just volume.
It seems to be more of a frame of mind or attitude about the use of the compressor. Or maybe just the technology.
I don't know. I was hoping that you might provide a little insight into the matter.
I am familiar with the whole Loudness Wars” debate and much prefer, at least personally, to the recordings from the 60's and 70's as a whole. The sound and color are more pleasing and interesting to me.
Anyway, I love both of the aforementioned bands and this message was not meant as a criticism of either the bands or the engineers/producers working with them - they are all great!
My question was more about the use of the compressor and changes in attitudes that may have occurred with engineers, producers, etc… and whether or not the technology existed back in 1963 when the Beatles were recording on their 4 track machine or was it simply not something that anyone had tried, thought to try, or technologically not possible (or a combination of all of those things).
Again, thank you for your time. I really find your responses informative.
No problems… that helps clarify what you are asking about you're talking specifically about the bottom end, and bass in particular, I don't think it really has to do with compressors.
The most coveted compressors these days are still some of the oldest. Fairchild, 1176, LA2A are all classic compressors that have been around for a long time, and are still copied and even emulated with plug-ins today. Compressor technology really hasn't evolved enough over the years for that to be the difference you are hearing.I believe it's simply more of a progression of the recording medium and the enhanced techniques allowed as recording technology improved.
Using your example of classic Beatles' songs… those were recorded back when they had only 2 tracks to begin with, and then later on 3 or 4 tracks. They also had a limited number of channels on the console and a limited amount of processing gear. Many instruments had to be recorded and mixed together on the fly to a single track, and then the tracks were often bounced to free up additional tracks. Bouncing certainly degrades the low end and high-end, and having to record many instruments at once didn't leave for much flexibility when it came time to mix. Of course, the real mixing was done during the actual recording since so many instruments were mixed together onto one track, and there wasn't much mixing to be done with only 2 or 4 tracks at the end.
As technology progressed, there were a lot more tracks to work with, so the bass could live on its own track until the mixing stage, and not have to be bounced several times, or pre-mixed with several other instruments onto one track. That gives you a LOT more flexibility in shaping the tone of the bass and making sure it cuts through in the final mix. Plus, not having to bounce the tracks definitely will preserve much of the original punch of the track.
Finally, I think a lot of it is simply a change in style over the years. I think in the older days of music, the rhythm instruments were much more of a background type of role and not meant to be as up front and punchy as we like them today. Over time, the drums and bass have become a much more dominant force in the songs, and they are simply mixed to be much more up front and punchy. I really don't believe it has anything to do with compressor technology specifically… just a change of attitude, and a lot more tracks to work with to enable much more flexibility in the final mix.
Of course, these days with computers, you don't have to worry about generation loss due to bouncing, or even degrading the signal by repeated playback of the tape. Back in the old days of analog tape, every time you played the tape, the signal would degrade a bit more as more oxide was scraped off the tape by the tape heads. Especially for bands like the Beatles that were very creative in the studio, there was a lot of bouncing and a lot of playing of the tape over and over, and so their recorded signals probably suffered more than other bands of the time.
There was some interesting notes from Bruce Swedien about how he used multiple reels of tape and multiple machines when working with Michael Jackson. He would fill up a tape with tracks and then immediately make a reference onto another tape on another machine (with a timecode track for synchronization also) and then put the original tape away and never play it again until time to mix. That's one of the things he says made those recordings and mixes sound so good - because there wasn't all the signal degradation from repeated playback of the tapes. Also, he is strongly against the use of compression in general, as he believes it destroys too much of the transients and the punch” of the audio, and that people use it too much as a crutch these days. He claims that not using compression is another reason why those recordings sound so good. Something to check out anyway. He had a whole section devoted to questions and answers on the forum a while back:
Also some great articles in recent trade magazines, and his book Make Mine Music” is also a great read!
Steve - thank you for answer. Very informative. That's the information I was looking for.
7 Quick Tips For Recording Great Amp Sounds
by Rich Tozzoli
Whether you're recording in your bedroom or at a high-end studio, these very simple recording techniques can have a huge, positive impact on the sound you lay down.
1. Put the mic directly on the cabinet.
To get an in-your-face sound, try taking a classic Shure SM57 and jamming it right on the cabinet, just to the right or left of the cone's center. You'll get a little proximity effect, which is basically some added bass response. Use it to your advantage and try to keep the EQ'ing to a minimum.
2. Axis, Bold as Tone
By taking that Shure SM57 (or similar) mic and just slightly changing its angle in relation to the speaker, you're miking off axis.” The tonal character will change a bit; and at this point, experimentation is key. If you can, have a friend move it a little at a time as you listen on headphones or in the control room. You'll hear that magic spot. When you find it, take pictures so you remember the exact positioning.
3. Change your tubes.
If you've got a tube amp, don't just assume the tubes are good. You'd probably change your strings in anticipation of a recording, right? Give your tubes the same consideration. Always have a second set on hand, and unless you're a complete traditionalist, try a set from a different manufacturer than your originals. All tubes have slightly different attack and breakup, even amps of the same type and rating. Use your ears and don't get lazy.
4. Use more than one mic.
Even if you're recording for yourself, don't settle on using just one mic. If you have to, borrow an extra mic from a friend. It doesn't have to be a vintage Neumann. Place the second mic either on the cabinet next to the first one or farther back in the room. Any functioning mic is worth a try. You'll have more tonal options when it comes time for mixdown.
5. Compress the room.
When that second mic mentioned above is used as a room mic, place it at least 3 feet away from the cabinet —preferably even farther back. Then, when listening back, try applying a massive amount of compression to that room mic. Make sure not to compress the attack out of the notes; just get enough so that it squashes the peaks down a bit. You can always use the compressor's makeup gain to get more volume.
6. Use wide panning.
When it comes time to mix your two amp-mic tracks together, pan the two tracks oppositely; that is, pan one hard left and the other hard right. You'll notice the soundstage in the Left/Right field opening up. Then experiment with putting a very short delay on the room mic, around 30-50 ms. A very nice stereo image can be had using just two simple mics and a delay.
7. Use more than one amp.
If you've got the gear for it, split your signal (either with a stereo FX pedal or DI) and run your guitar into two different amps. Like having two mics, the two separate amp sounds give you more options at mixdown. When recording heavily distorted parts, try to minimize the distortion on a second amp and increase a bit of treble, which helps the pick attack cut through a dense mix.
Rich Tozzoli is a Grammy-nominated engineer, mixer, producer and composer. He has worked with artists such as Ace Frehley, Al DiMeola and David Bowie, among many more, and is the author of Pro Tools Surround Sound Mixing Rich is also a lifelong guitarist and composer. His work can be heard regularly on FoxNFL, HBO, and Discovery Channel, and he's recently released the full-length Rhythm Up
Whether you're recording in your bedroom or at a high-end studio, these very simple recording techniques can have a huge, positive impact on the sound you lay down.
1. Put the mic directly on the cabinet.
To get an in-your-face sound, try taking a classic Shure SM57 and jamming it right on the cabinet, just to the right or left of the cone's center. You'll get a little proximity effect, which is basically some added bass response. Use it to your advantage and try to keep the EQ'ing to a minimum.
2. Axis, Bold as Tone
By taking that Shure SM57 (or similar) mic and just slightly changing its angle in relation to the speaker, you're miking off axis.” The tonal character will change a bit; and at this point, experimentation is key. If you can, have a friend move it a little at a time as you listen on headphones or in the control room. You'll hear that magic spot. When you find it, take pictures so you remember the exact positioning.
3. Change your tubes.
If you've got a tube amp, don't just assume the tubes are good. You'd probably change your strings in anticipation of a recording, right? Give your tubes the same consideration. Always have a second set on hand, and unless you're a complete traditionalist, try a set from a different manufacturer than your originals. All tubes have slightly different attack and breakup, even amps of the same type and rating. Use your ears and don't get lazy.
4. Use more than one mic.
Even if you're recording for yourself, don't settle on using just one mic. If you have to, borrow an extra mic from a friend. It doesn't have to be a vintage Neumann. Place the second mic either on the cabinet next to the first one or farther back in the room. Any functioning mic is worth a try. You'll have more tonal options when it comes time for mixdown.
5. Compress the room.
When that second mic mentioned above is used as a room mic, place it at least 3 feet away from the cabinet —preferably even farther back. Then, when listening back, try applying a massive amount of compression to that room mic. Make sure not to compress the attack out of the notes; just get enough so that it squashes the peaks down a bit. You can always use the compressor's makeup gain to get more volume.
6. Use wide panning.
When it comes time to mix your two amp-mic tracks together, pan the two tracks oppositely; that is, pan one hard left and the other hard right. You'll notice the soundstage in the Left/Right field opening up. Then experiment with putting a very short delay on the room mic, around 30-50 ms. A very nice stereo image can be had using just two simple mics and a delay.
7. Use more than one amp.
If you've got the gear for it, split your signal (either with a stereo FX pedal or DI) and run your guitar into two different amps. Like having two mics, the two separate amp sounds give you more options at mixdown. When recording heavily distorted parts, try to minimize the distortion on a second amp and increase a bit of treble, which helps the pick attack cut through a dense mix.
Rich Tozzoli is a Grammy-nominated engineer, mixer, producer and composer. He has worked with artists such as Ace Frehley, Al DiMeola and David Bowie, among many more, and is the author of Pro Tools Surround Sound Mixing Rich is also a lifelong guitarist and composer. His work can be heard regularly on FoxNFL, HBO, and Discovery Channel, and he's recently released the full-length Rhythm Up
Monday, 18 July 2016
Royer Microphones
Recording Tips
If you're a guitarist, you know the feeling. You've worked at your tone for years - the guitar is right, the amp is right, the cabinet is right, your sound is killing it, the air is moving... then you hear what you've recorded, or you listen to the front of house sound, and wonder Where did my SOUND go???
The R-121 ribbon will get you there! It's a great feeling to go into the control room and feel like you're standing in front of your amplifier again. Nothing gives a bigger, warmer, more natural reproduction of a guitar amp than a good ribbon mic.
The R-121 was the world's first tough ribbon. You can put it on a loud electric guitar cab without fear of blowing the ribbon. You'll even find R-121's and R-122's on the road (see R-121 Live & R-122 Live ), with bands like Aerosmith , Green Day, Maroon Five, Matchbox 20 , Goo Goo Dolls, The Stones, Tom Petty, Thursday , etc.
Before Miking Up
The best way to start with an R-121 is to spend some time listening to the amp you're recording. While playing your guitar (or better yet, have someone play it for you), listen to the speaker cabinet and the individual speakers, both close-up (watch your ears!) and from different places in the room. At a close distance, you'll find that the speakers are brightest at the center of the dome, then they become darker as you move off center towards the edge of the speaker. You'll also find that the sound changes as you back away from the cabinet, often developing increased tonal complexity and low end, with the cabinet developing more thump and the acoustic characteristics of the room coming more into play.
Miking Electric Guitars
The following positions are good starting places for miking guitar cabs with R-121's. Try these positions to familiarize yourself with the microphone and how it picks up your amp. These positions are good for the R-121, R-122 and R-122V, but we'll refer only to the R-121 for this writing. Like everything, once you have the basics, experiment to see what else you find!
For the brightest sound, position the R-121 6" to 8" from the grill cloth, with the ribbon element centered on the dome of the speaker. This is usually too bright sounding a position, but it's good to know this sound before moving on. Like a tone control, you'll find that wherever you place the mic, moving it closer to the center of the speaker will give you more highs.
The tone becomes warmer as you move the microphone from the center of the speaker towards the edge of the speaker. Keeping the mic 6" to 8" from the grill cloth, move the mic halfway between the dome and the outside edge of the speaker. Point the mic straight ahead at the speaker cone. After listening to that, leave the mic in the same place but rotate it in its stand so it is pointed directly at the dome (center) of the speaker. The difference may be subtle, but you'll definitely hear it.
Now move the mic back to a distance of two feet, then three feet. This working distance is far more useful than many people know. You get speaker and cabinet development, and the spaciousness can sound remarkably good. The sound of the room you're recording in will affect your results - a good sounding room can add a nice character to your guitar tracks. If the room doesn't sound great but you like the ambiance of distance miking, you can hang sound deadening material behind the mic (no closer than 6 inches to the mic) to minimize room sound.
Now try the same positions you tried in #1 and #2 above, but closer to the cabinet (3" to 5" from the grill cloth). Being closer to the speaker, you'll notice more of a direct sound with very little room ambiance. You'll also notice the bass building up as you move the mic closer to the cabinet. This is due to proximity effect, which is a bass buildup that occurs as the microphone is moved closer to the sound source - the closer the mic is to the sound source, the greater the degree of bass buildup will be. Some microphones exhibit greater proximity effect than others - ribbons tend to have a lot of it. Proximity effect can be very useful, as when a vocalist moves closer to a studio condenser microphone to give a bigger, more authoritative sound to their voice. The same thing happens when using a ribbon on a guitar cabinet - the sound gets heavier in the bass as you move the mic closer to the cab, even by only an inch or two. You can balance the bass and bring more highs in by moving the mic closer to the center of the speaker.
For a dramatic bass buildup, place the mic 1 to 2 inches from the grill cloth. The microphone's proximity effect will give you larger-than-life low end. If the sound becomes overly bass heavy and overpowers the highs, simply back the mic off a little and/or move it closer to the dome of the speaker.
Note: When recording electric guitar at extremely close working distances, we recommend tilting the R-121 forward by 15 degrees or more. This angling of the mic helps to protect the ribbon element in extremely high SPL usage.
For tracking aggressive electric guitars, many engineers like to blend a close-up R-121 with other mics that have a more pronounced high end response (57's and 421's work well).
Record the two (or more) mics to separate tracks and blend them to taste during the mix. The close-up R-121 will give big bass and strong mids, but the proximity effect may dampen the highs (depending on how close to the center of the speaker the mic is placed). Blending in the more aggressive high end response of the other mics gives a well-balanced rock tone.
(Tip: Rock engineer Michael Wagener plugs his R-121's into Chandler TG-2 mic pre's, then sets the variable impedance to 300 ohms. This is technically wrong" because the mic needs a higher impedance to give full frequency response. But the lower impedance interferes with the R-121's ability to respond to low frequencies, which balances out the proximity effect of the close up mic and gives an outstanding rock tone. See Michael Wagener's mic placement Hear samples from Inside The Mix. )
Another option is to place an SM-57 close up and an R-121 three feet back pointed toward the middle of the cabinet.
If you're a guitarist, you know the feeling. You've worked at your tone for years - the guitar is right, the amp is right, the cabinet is right, your sound is killing it, the air is moving... then you hear what you've recorded, or you listen to the front of house sound, and wonder Where did my SOUND go???
The R-121 ribbon will get you there! It's a great feeling to go into the control room and feel like you're standing in front of your amplifier again. Nothing gives a bigger, warmer, more natural reproduction of a guitar amp than a good ribbon mic.
The R-121 was the world's first tough ribbon. You can put it on a loud electric guitar cab without fear of blowing the ribbon. You'll even find R-121's and R-122's on the road (see R-121 Live & R-122 Live ), with bands like Aerosmith , Green Day, Maroon Five, Matchbox 20 , Goo Goo Dolls, The Stones, Tom Petty, Thursday , etc.
Before Miking Up
The best way to start with an R-121 is to spend some time listening to the amp you're recording. While playing your guitar (or better yet, have someone play it for you), listen to the speaker cabinet and the individual speakers, both close-up (watch your ears!) and from different places in the room. At a close distance, you'll find that the speakers are brightest at the center of the dome, then they become darker as you move off center towards the edge of the speaker. You'll also find that the sound changes as you back away from the cabinet, often developing increased tonal complexity and low end, with the cabinet developing more thump and the acoustic characteristics of the room coming more into play.
Miking Electric Guitars
The following positions are good starting places for miking guitar cabs with R-121's. Try these positions to familiarize yourself with the microphone and how it picks up your amp. These positions are good for the R-121, R-122 and R-122V, but we'll refer only to the R-121 for this writing. Like everything, once you have the basics, experiment to see what else you find!
For the brightest sound, position the R-121 6" to 8" from the grill cloth, with the ribbon element centered on the dome of the speaker. This is usually too bright sounding a position, but it's good to know this sound before moving on. Like a tone control, you'll find that wherever you place the mic, moving it closer to the center of the speaker will give you more highs.
The tone becomes warmer as you move the microphone from the center of the speaker towards the edge of the speaker. Keeping the mic 6" to 8" from the grill cloth, move the mic halfway between the dome and the outside edge of the speaker. Point the mic straight ahead at the speaker cone. After listening to that, leave the mic in the same place but rotate it in its stand so it is pointed directly at the dome (center) of the speaker. The difference may be subtle, but you'll definitely hear it.
Now move the mic back to a distance of two feet, then three feet. This working distance is far more useful than many people know. You get speaker and cabinet development, and the spaciousness can sound remarkably good. The sound of the room you're recording in will affect your results - a good sounding room can add a nice character to your guitar tracks. If the room doesn't sound great but you like the ambiance of distance miking, you can hang sound deadening material behind the mic (no closer than 6 inches to the mic) to minimize room sound.
Now try the same positions you tried in #1 and #2 above, but closer to the cabinet (3" to 5" from the grill cloth). Being closer to the speaker, you'll notice more of a direct sound with very little room ambiance. You'll also notice the bass building up as you move the mic closer to the cabinet. This is due to proximity effect, which is a bass buildup that occurs as the microphone is moved closer to the sound source - the closer the mic is to the sound source, the greater the degree of bass buildup will be. Some microphones exhibit greater proximity effect than others - ribbons tend to have a lot of it. Proximity effect can be very useful, as when a vocalist moves closer to a studio condenser microphone to give a bigger, more authoritative sound to their voice. The same thing happens when using a ribbon on a guitar cabinet - the sound gets heavier in the bass as you move the mic closer to the cab, even by only an inch or two. You can balance the bass and bring more highs in by moving the mic closer to the center of the speaker.
For a dramatic bass buildup, place the mic 1 to 2 inches from the grill cloth. The microphone's proximity effect will give you larger-than-life low end. If the sound becomes overly bass heavy and overpowers the highs, simply back the mic off a little and/or move it closer to the dome of the speaker.
Note: When recording electric guitar at extremely close working distances, we recommend tilting the R-121 forward by 15 degrees or more. This angling of the mic helps to protect the ribbon element in extremely high SPL usage.
For tracking aggressive electric guitars, many engineers like to blend a close-up R-121 with other mics that have a more pronounced high end response (57's and 421's work well).
Record the two (or more) mics to separate tracks and blend them to taste during the mix. The close-up R-121 will give big bass and strong mids, but the proximity effect may dampen the highs (depending on how close to the center of the speaker the mic is placed). Blending in the more aggressive high end response of the other mics gives a well-balanced rock tone.
(Tip: Rock engineer Michael Wagener plugs his R-121's into Chandler TG-2 mic pre's, then sets the variable impedance to 300 ohms. This is technically wrong" because the mic needs a higher impedance to give full frequency response. But the lower impedance interferes with the R-121's ability to respond to low frequencies, which balances out the proximity effect of the close up mic and gives an outstanding rock tone. See Michael Wagener's mic placement Hear samples from Inside The Mix. )
Another option is to place an SM-57 close up and an R-121 three feet back pointed toward the middle of the cabinet.
Sunday, 17 July 2016
Recording Piano
Recording piano can be one of the trickier things to get right in the studio. Different microphone positions and techniques can produce wildly different results, and the recording environment can have a large effect on the sound as well.
So my goal is always to keep things as simple as possible when it comes to recording a piano. Sticking to a few core techniques can help you capture solid recordings and record the take you want.
The Piano
One of the reasons for the difficulty in recording piano is due to the sound being produced by the whole body of the instrument. Sound waves emerge from all over a piano, and different parts of the instrument's wooden body resonate at different frequencies. It makes the positioning of your microphones very important to get right.
There are two main types of acoustic piano:
Upright pianos are similar to grand pianos in that the whole of the instrument's body emits sound when the piano is played. But uprights weren't really designed with recording in mind (they were mainly built to be played for entertainment in the home), so capturing a nice tone can be just as difficult.
Grand pianos are usually recorded in large live rooms in commercial studios. The size of the instrument means that there's a lot going on acoustically - different parts of the instrument will resonate with different frequencies, so your microphone placement can have a big impact on the sound of the recording.
Upright pianos are similar to grand pianos in that the whole of the instrument's body emits sound when the piano is played. But uprights weren't really designed with recording in mind (they were mainly built for use in the home), so capturing a nice tone can be just as difficult.
A piano will go out of tune at some point, and the only way around it is to get a professional piano tuner to re-tune it. It goes without saying that if you want a quality recording, the piano has to be in tune.
Before recording begins, it's worth checking that the pianist's seat doesn't squeak or make any unwanted noises as it will be easily picked up by the microphones. Noise from the piano's pedals can also be an issue - WD-40 can usually sort this out though.
If you're unable to use a real piano in your own studio (and I'd predict that most home studio owners are in this position), or if your room acoustics cause too many issues, there are a couple of alternatives:
Digital piano
Digital piano
Recording Piano Mic Placement
As with any instrument, the microphones you use and where you place them can have a big impact on the recorded sound. A few things to keep in mind when you recording piano are:
Direct vs ambient sound
Stereo width
Recording in mono with one mic or in stereo with two mics are both good options for recording piano. Recording in mono is definitely the easiest choice, but the sound can be narrow and a bit flat - it won't reflect the real way that we hear the instrument (in stereo), with the lower frequencies panned to one side and the higher frequencies panned to the other side.
Recording piano in stereo mirrors our real-world experience of listening to a piano, as it allows you to pan one mic to the left and one to the right - the amount of pan you use will control how wide the stereo image is. The mic used for the lower notes is usually panned to the left and the mic for higher notes panned to the right, reflecting how a pianist would hear the instrument when playing.
Home studios are usually restricted in the space available, which makes a piano perfect for close micing. It cuts down on unwanted ambience from the room, and you can then add reverb during mixing to help blend the piano with the other instruments in your production.
Microphone Techniques - Grand Piano
There are lots of different ways to record piano, and each technique will produce its own kind of tone. It's pretty unlikely that you'll have a grand piano as a home studio owner (uprights and digital pianos will be more common), which is why I'm going to keep it simple.
Basic stereo mic techniques , like AB or XY, can easily be used. It's always worth trying a few different positions out before committing to your choice - grand pianos are big instruments, so it's natural that there may be different 'sweet spots' around the piano that will give you a nicer tone.
The XY technique can be seen above, with the AB technique below.
Basic stereo mic techniques , like AB or XY, can easily be used. It's always worth trying a few different positions out before committing to your choice - grand pianos are big instruments, so it's natural that there may be different 'sweet spots' around the piano that will give you a nicer tone.
The XY technique can be seen on the left, with the AB technique above.
You can also use the M/S technique to great effect if you're recording piano at home. Raising the level of the side microphone will widen the stereo image, giving you great control of the stereo width during the mixing stage.
So my goal is always to keep things as simple as possible when it comes to recording a piano. Sticking to a few core techniques can help you capture solid recordings and record the take you want.
The Piano
One of the reasons for the difficulty in recording piano is due to the sound being produced by the whole body of the instrument. Sound waves emerge from all over a piano, and different parts of the instrument's wooden body resonate at different frequencies. It makes the positioning of your microphones very important to get right.
There are two main types of acoustic piano:
Upright pianos are similar to grand pianos in that the whole of the instrument's body emits sound when the piano is played. But uprights weren't really designed with recording in mind (they were mainly built to be played for entertainment in the home), so capturing a nice tone can be just as difficult.
Grand pianos are usually recorded in large live rooms in commercial studios. The size of the instrument means that there's a lot going on acoustically - different parts of the instrument will resonate with different frequencies, so your microphone placement can have a big impact on the sound of the recording.
Upright pianos are similar to grand pianos in that the whole of the instrument's body emits sound when the piano is played. But uprights weren't really designed with recording in mind (they were mainly built for use in the home), so capturing a nice tone can be just as difficult.
A piano will go out of tune at some point, and the only way around it is to get a professional piano tuner to re-tune it. It goes without saying that if you want a quality recording, the piano has to be in tune.
Before recording begins, it's worth checking that the pianist's seat doesn't squeak or make any unwanted noises as it will be easily picked up by the microphones. Noise from the piano's pedals can also be an issue - WD-40 can usually sort this out though.
If you're unable to use a real piano in your own studio (and I'd predict that most home studio owners are in this position), or if your room acoustics cause too many issues, there are a couple of alternatives:
Digital piano
Digital piano
Recording Piano Mic Placement
As with any instrument, the microphones you use and where you place them can have a big impact on the recorded sound. A few things to keep in mind when you recording piano are:
Direct vs ambient sound
Stereo width
Recording in mono with one mic or in stereo with two mics are both good options for recording piano. Recording in mono is definitely the easiest choice, but the sound can be narrow and a bit flat - it won't reflect the real way that we hear the instrument (in stereo), with the lower frequencies panned to one side and the higher frequencies panned to the other side.
Recording piano in stereo mirrors our real-world experience of listening to a piano, as it allows you to pan one mic to the left and one to the right - the amount of pan you use will control how wide the stereo image is. The mic used for the lower notes is usually panned to the left and the mic for higher notes panned to the right, reflecting how a pianist would hear the instrument when playing.
Home studios are usually restricted in the space available, which makes a piano perfect for close micing. It cuts down on unwanted ambience from the room, and you can then add reverb during mixing to help blend the piano with the other instruments in your production.
Microphone Techniques - Grand Piano
There are lots of different ways to record piano, and each technique will produce its own kind of tone. It's pretty unlikely that you'll have a grand piano as a home studio owner (uprights and digital pianos will be more common), which is why I'm going to keep it simple.
Basic stereo mic techniques , like AB or XY, can easily be used. It's always worth trying a few different positions out before committing to your choice - grand pianos are big instruments, so it's natural that there may be different 'sweet spots' around the piano that will give you a nicer tone.
The XY technique can be seen above, with the AB technique below.
Basic stereo mic techniques , like AB or XY, can easily be used. It's always worth trying a few different positions out before committing to your choice - grand pianos are big instruments, so it's natural that there may be different 'sweet spots' around the piano that will give you a nicer tone.
The XY technique can be seen on the left, with the AB technique above.
You can also use the M/S technique to great effect if you're recording piano at home. Raising the level of the side microphone will widen the stereo image, giving you great control of the stereo width during the mixing stage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)