David Spearritt wrote on Sun, 05 February 2006 12:25 |
Close miking of pianos and guitars is a very silly idea in general, and I can often hear the lumpiest, most unattractive results from such practices. |
Klaus Heyne wrote on Sun, 05 February 2006 15:48 |
This assumption is less and less valid, as fewer and fewer people venture out to listen to an orchestra, string quartet, classical guitar performance, and so on. |
Quote: |
The same easy answer comes for me when listening to recorded flute or sax: I detest the sound of the valve action. It does not add anything to my listening pleasure. Similarly, steel string guitar: the strident string screeches, when the player changes fingerings, especially over wound strings, is not nice to hear. Finally, I judge any instrument as being recorded to closely when I can hear the player breathe. |
natpub wrote on Sun, 05 February 2006 18:13 |
The sweat, huffing and puffing, and fingers flying are all part of the organic intimacy and (to borrow a Klaus word)"sense"-uality of natural music. However, for those who want neutered music, we certainly have samples and samplers that can nicely provide pure tones stripped of their human operators . |
natpub wrote on Sun, 05 February 2006 18:13 |
burping or farting Keith Jarret's or Ramsey Lewis's (in)famous vocalizing during their piano improvisations are about as much distraction from their music as I am willing to take. |
Yannick Willox wrote on Mon, 06 February 2006 02:43 |
Klaus, [recording breathing sounds of players] would exclude some of the finest Belgian (soloist) classical string players from being recorded. Their nose or mouth breathing noises are sometimes louder than the instrument (especially when playing a very expressive pp part). |
Quote: |
Furthermore, you are excluding contemporary classical music. What about prepared piano, or a flute solo piece, based on breathing sound, key noises etc. ? |
Quote: |
They are disturbing noises for you; for me (and a lot of composers or musicians) they are an integral part of the music. I'm sorry, but you are clearly missing a lot of great music, that has been recorded magnificently.. |
Andres Gonzalez wrote on Tue, 07 February 2006 04:17 |
I recall reading (I think it was on one of these forms) some time ago about an engineer spending allot of time removing the vocal breath (inhaling) sounds from a Barbra Streisand session. When Barbra came in the next day and heard it, she said that she hated the sound without the breath noise and told him to put all of her breath noises back. -Andres |
Marik wrote on Tue, 07 February 2006 17:04 |
...In less than perfect situation my first choice would be MS recorded separately as two channels, where for “M” I’d try a cardioid Gefell M294, and for “S” a ribbon (besides perfect fig8 pattern, it tends to be more forgiving for room flaws)... |
Klaus Heyne wrote on Sun, 05 February 2006 20:32 |
I think we can disagree about preferred methods of recording without disparaging those with differing opinions. |
PRobb wrote on Fri, 10 February 2006 16:25 |
The answer is totally dependent on the type of music. For classical and accoustic jazz, there is a benchmark and that is the sound of the instrument. The goal is a high fidelity recording in the literal sense of the words. Fidelity means truth. The point is that what you hear in the room should come out of the speakers. So the "correct" method is the one that achieves this goal. In pop music, it is a different story. A piano cannot be heard over a pounding rock drum kit and a Marshall stack. So the fidelity of the piano sound is irrelevant. A natural piano sound would be useless. In that case, micing close to the hammers and using compression and EQ gives an exaggerated, hyped sound that lets the piano work in an unnatural context. |
compasspnt wrote on Tue, 07 February 2006 23:15 |
What then would your mic'ing technique be in a perfect situation? |
ted nightshade wrote on Wed, 15 February 2006 18:41 |
...I would say that if the performer is intent on creating a certain sound at a distance in the room, the right way to record it is to capture that sound. It's a shame when we get to hear what it all sounds like point-blank but that's not what the artist intended. But it would just be obstinate to assume all performers intend to create their sound in this old-school way, even if I am terribly prejudiced in favor of that approach... |
DavidSpearritt wrote on Fri, 10 February 2006 21:08 |
A lot of "pop" music use acoustic instrumentation and if they are close mic'd they will sound bad no matter how much eq or compression or volume is used. If they are competing with a Marshall stack then I would also question the composition (song writing) quality. |
hfffoman wrote on Tue, 07 February 2006 09:22 |
Someone asked where I got the idea that close mic'ing was common for the piano. The answer is that I have no experience of recording but have spent many hours researching because I want to record solo classical piano at home. There is an amazing amount of advice / opinion out there and most of what I found does seem to be advocating putting the mics close, even after discounting those that were guided by the need to avoid leakage or the desire to obtain an unnatural sound. The AMT people, who make a mic specifically for the piano (M40) actually advised me to put it close up. (This mic seemed good for me given my price bracket but having heard one on a website I wasn't very keen on it). I must admit that some of the other web-posted samples with close mics did have high quality sound, although not very natural. |
Quote: |
Consider want the artist wants as an end result, consider who the intended audience is and then proceed accordingly. |
DavidSpearritt wrote on Fri, 03 March 2006 22:02 | ||
Trouble is, most artists and general audience are clueless about sound. So considering their opinion seriously is not a great idea. Physics is a better guide. |
wildplum wrote on Fri, 03 March 2006 21:44 |
... most of the musicians coming through my studio nowadays want to sound like they sound in the local folk house. mostly, this is without a mic, through a DI. They also think that, because they are in a studio, the should be miced. The result is- close micing. many, many audience goers today think that the sound of an acoustic guitar is that of a pickup through a DI out a PA system And, as strange as it may seem, the audience wants the same thing. . when they hear a more "classically" recorded guitar, they say "that doesn't sound like soandso, it sounds strange"... |
Marik wrote on Tue, 07 February 2006 16:04 |
I almost exclusively specialize on recording of classical piano and have been doing it for many years. I am yet to see a concert pianist who would like to hear performance with close up miking. So many fantastic performances even of the greatest artists were ruined this way. First of all, for a serious recording (esp. for commercial release) I would not even consider recording in a studio. The only thing to go is a concert hall with acoustics not less than beautiful, on a piano not in less than in a perfect shape, with a top technician, standing by during the whole session. Of course, there are some very good studios, but I am yet to hear a studio piano recording, which would be as emotionally involved as made in the hall. You should understand two aspects of piano performance: 1) The brain of the experienced concert pianist works differently. S/he hears not what is coming out of the piano on the stage, but first projects the sound into a hall, and then listens to the sound coming back from THE HALL. Take it away from the pianist and 80% of the inspiration will be gone. Of course there are some exceptions like G. Gould, but he had his own, unique way of music making, and had a completely different concept of the sound. Needless to say, he used his own piano, which was "doctored" in the way suited to his (and only his) needs and thus was perfectly suited for studio recording. 2) Piano essentially is a percussive instrument. Most of the pianists (once again, with some exceptions) strive for overcoming this very nature. They want to sing on piano and want to hear their sound round and homogenous, with perfect connection between notes and music ideas, i.e. legato playing is a fundamental concept of piano performance. You have to help the pianist with that. Close miking results in a "tiki-tak" kind of sound, which is essentially percussive, and defeats the whole idea of legato, and ultimately the whole idea of music making and how the artist wants to hear the final result. You still need to have a good sound definition, so a fine balance, where the sound is already not "tiki-tak", but still not too "wet", can be a challenge. When you record, you need to find a sweet spot between the complex relation of a pianist's personality and the piano/hall/type of music, where ultimately, sound itself expresses emotional context of the music and its ideas. For a natural sounding piano try to mike it so, that afterwards you do as little electronic processing as possible. In less than perfect situations my first choice would be MS recorded separately as two channels, where for 'M' I'd try a cardioid Gefell M294, and for 'S' a ribbon (besides perfect fig8 pattern, it tends to be more forgiving for room flaws). Then I'd edit the recording, and then treat/EQ each channel separately during a mastering stage. Best regards, Mark Fuksman |