An interesting revelation

[matyas]

So yesterday I was recording a dress rehearsal for a cellist I've worked with. He's doing a gig Monday night, and he wanted me to record his rehearsal in the space so that I could familiarize myself with the hall and he could hear the sounds I was getting. My on-location rig is pretty simple, just a pair of MC012s going into an mBox. Sometimes I bring better mic pres, and sometimes I borrow an 002, but I had the basic system yesterday. The hall is a pretty resonant classical recital hall, with a high ceiling and a hardwood stage, but the floor is mostly carpeted and there are tapestries on the wall. The music was all standard-rep classical, cello and piano (a 9-foot Steinway). Anyway, I put up my Oktavas in XY, at first fairly close to the musicians, but I later moved them back because I was getting better clarity further back in the hall (the piano was too muddy closer up.) Meanwhile, the cellist has also brought his own mBox and laptop, and his pair of Rode SDCs. (NT4s, I think.) He set up his mics very close to the stage, much lower than mine. (I had my booms up full height, about 8 feet or so, because I like to catch the room tone when I record classical.) After the rehearsal, we were comparing recordings, and this had to have been the most graphic illustration of the difference sounds of mics and positions I have ever heard. Even with identical preamps and converters, and fairly similar mic design (both cardioid small diaphragm condensers), the sound wasn't even close. The Rodes were so much brigher it wasn't funny. Meanwhile, the cellist's mics were catching some room tone, but not nearly as much as I was. The cellist (somewhat unsurprisingly, I supposed), vastly preferred his own recording. He thought the Oktavas were too dark, and he thought that my recording was to reverby - in fact, he said it sounded like it was recorded in the bathroom! For my part, I thought the Rodes were much too bright, but I could kind of see his point about the reverb. Food for thought....

[Shane Michael Rose]

interesting.


which recording do you think captured the performance the best?

[drumsound]

Once the hall is full your set-up will not yield as much natural reverb. The people and their clothing will greatly effect the sound of the room.

[kayagum]

I had a recording sessions with my NT5s (the NT4 is the mic with the XY capsules at a 45 degree angle), and I had it pretty close to the stage floor too, mostly because it was a live concert and that was pretty much where the stage people allowed it.

It was bright, but not to the extent you probably heard. The interesting thing was that you can hear some interesting EQ- comb filtering?

But the performance was great, and the sonics didn't detract at all. In fact, it captured the emotions of the a capella group - it was their farewell show. You can hear them choke up between songs.

Definitely a case of YMMV.

[Professor]

The lower height is going to yield a different balance of cello vs. piano since the difference in the distance from cello to mic and piano to mic will be larger than for the mics hoisted up into the air. It also would have a bit of noticeable comb filtering as kayagum described because the reflections off the floor will be following so closely behind the direct sounds.

Really though, I'm kind of most surprised that the cellist would prefer the sound closer to the instrument. I suppose since they are his mics, and his placement that part of it could be an emotional bias. Though more of it may be that since he owns these mics and the recorder, that he probably places them in about the same configuration in his practice room at home as well. So he is just plain going to be used to hearing that sound, and that will be the sound he considers 'normal'.
Most of the classical players I've been working with lately have been obsessive about large distances and lots of reverb because they aren't used to hearing their instruments so exposed.

-Jeremy

[Harry]

Rode mics sure are bright aren't they???

[matyas]

The actual concert was last night, and I ended up doing things a bit differently. I did surprise me quite a bit that the cellist wanted a more close-miked sound, because (as the Professor has noted on several occasions), most classical musicians these days are addicted to reverb. (This especially true of the younger generation, in my experience, because, I think, they, like me, grew up on '80's pop.) I wasn't surprised that he preferred his mics, because he's been recording himself for audition tapes the last few months, and I'm sure he's grown quite accustomed to the sound. (Even if they did sound overly bright to my ears.)
It occurred to me that (again, as the Prof mentioned) I think he was wanting to capture the sound that musicians were hearing, rather than the sound that the audience would hear. I did mention that it would sound different once the hall was filled, and he was aware of that, but in the end, he still wanted it close up.
For the gig, I ended up putting up the mics in ORTF (rather than XY, as I had been doing), at about ear level, at more or less the distance from the stage that the cellist had put up his mics. I didn't hear any strange comb-filtering, but I haven't listened to the recordings yet.
I should also mention that the local classical radio station does a lot of on-location recording in this hall. Apparently they generally go close up as well (although I only found this out later.)