|
Post by vikingblues on Apr 29, 2015 16:27:12 GMT
I'm trying to move recorded sounds on a step or two. Would that I could do the same with my playing! Having paid off the balance of the Lowden that doesn't belong to Birthday or Christmas presents from my weekly savings I'd managed to build up a bit of funds again. So cue some sort of GAS to stop me worrying about having some money saved up. I did consider the Rode NT5, and from a cut price aspect the Rode M5, but ended up opting for a less populist, less mainstream choice in the Russian made Oktava MK012. Eagle eyed viewers will have noticed above it was from Thomann - B stock at a very decent £192.50. Delivered with typical Thomann efficency - ordered very late Sunday night, delivered Wednesday lunchtime. The Oktava is a capsule based small diaphragm (128mm long, 23mm diameter) microphone - I got the version with just a Cardioid capsule and -10dB pad. Additional capsules are available separately for hyper-cardioid or omni-derectional. Comes in a nice solid wooden box. I went for the Oktava on the basis of it's perceived level frequency response across the range and it's tending towards slightly warm rather than boosting higher frequencies. Might as well get microphones that match my basic preference for sound. Just done one quick test today to make sure they're working - with the Lowden which happened to be in Open G. Microphones were mounted on the stereo bar as in the photos - fortunately I had enough spare bits and pieces to get the attachments working. :guitar1:Test 1 Oktava MK012 PairMost of the recording has one microphone aimed at the join of body and neck, and one aimed at around the bridge. 01:50 to 02:25 did have me moving slowly sideways to see what difference was evident from the change in relative position of microphones and guitar. I'm pretty happy with what I've heard so far - that wee bit of warmth I was hoping for seems to be there which is good and the sustain seems very well represented. I had noticed the specification for the Oktavas had higher noise levels than the AKG large diaphragm microphone I usually use or the Audio Spectrum I used to use, but to my ears there's less noise with the Oktavas. So - I need to explore all the possible permutations of using two microphones. Before now all I've experienced of that was using my AKG and old Audio Spectrum in some recordings the day before yesterday. If there are any major guidelines I should be aware of it'd be good to hear about them. There are another couple of microphone permutations that will be along soon for me, but I'll need to wait to get the extra gear later this week. AT the moment I'm just having the microphones going directly to the Alesis PC USB interface. No preamps. No Mixer. I've not got my head around the relative pros and cons of these and whether they're worth considering - or if they are how they should be wired up. Again any thoughts anyone has from what they've experienced would be very welcome. Mark
|
|
|
Post by lavaman on Apr 29, 2015 17:26:48 GMT
Hi
I've been recording for a few years now and still have a lot to learn. I think microphone placement is one of the most difficult areas to come to grips with.
First, your Oktava mics are very good choice. They are quality and different capsules will come in handy. I use a pair of Rode NT5 mics and they have produced good results. I see you've got a space bar to mount the mics on the same stand, handy for avoiding phase issues if the mics are different distances away from the guitar.
Using the space bar enables you to experiment with different microphone orientations. Pointing one at the neck / body join and the other towards the bridge works well. The main difficulty is finding the 'sweet spot'. If you're recording somebody else, you can ask them to play and just move the microphone around while listening to the sound through headphones. If you're recording yourself, that's almost impossible. So here's my TOP TIP - insert a delay plugin on the input of the track that your microphone is routed to. Set the delay to about 10 seconds and route the output through your monitors. Then play the guitar for 9 seconds, stop, and listen to what you just played through the monitors. Move the guitar or microphone and repeat until you find the sweet spot. This trick has saved me so much time.
Its also worth trying other microphone orientations such as XY or Mid/Side (You'll need a figure 8 capsule for M/S). Here you place the microphone pair further away from the guitar - say 5 ft to capture the sound of the room. If the room is carpeted you might want to experiment with placing a sheet of plywood on the floor in front of the mics to brighten the sound.
Finally, a superb reference is Mike Senior's book "Recording secrets for the small studio". Well worth £20.
bye for now
|
|
|
Post by andyhowell on Apr 30, 2015 6:53:31 GMT
Decent mics. You may well not need a preamp. I use a preamp for vocals but don't need it for guitar recordings.
|
|
|
Post by vikingblues on Apr 30, 2015 8:25:41 GMT
Thanks guys. I'll have to consider that book lavaman and thanks for the tips. I went for the Oktavas partly because that capsule arrangement meant I can add capsules to the arsenal later - for things like the mid / side you mention. No doubt at some point I will encounter the hazard of phasing - I suspect that experiencing it and hearing it will make it more obvious what it is than just reading about it does. Thanks for the comments on the preamp Andy. I think my only reservation is that I suspect the preamps built into the Alesis i02 USB interface I use are probably not high quality (given the price I don't think they could be). I have a preamp that works quite well on vocals but it doesn't seem to add anything to the guitar sound - it's pretty low budget as well though. I have a feeling that this upgrading of mics will then lead to me upgrading everything else in the recording chain! Still, I guess that might help me avoid buying more guitars for a while. Hopefully I'll not make too many howlers in wrong buying decisions along this road. It is a bit sobering to realise that what I'd thought was decent research in recent months hadn't even brought to my attention that there was a strong case for small and not large diaphragm condenser microphones for an acoustic guitar. Mark
|
|
|
Post by scripsit on Apr 30, 2015 8:30:11 GMT
AT the moment I'm just having the microphones going directly to the Alesis PC USB interface. No preamps. No Mixer. I've not got my head around the relative pros and cons of these and whether they're worth considering - or if they are how they should be wired up. Again any thoughts anyone has from what they've experienced would be very welcome. Mark The Alesis is a preamp, so if you're satisfied with the sound you're getting you don't need to get anything more complicated. The one thing that might benefit you in getting an alternative preamp (most of which, in the two channel at a time format are USB connectable anyway, so you replace the Alesis, rather than going through it into the computer) is your choice of DAW. I've not used the Alesis, but I've seen some comments on recording forums that you may not be able to connect it automatically to some varieties of DAW software without mucking around quite a lot. Most of the slightly more expensive but still cheap preamps like Focusrite Scarlett and so on come with software drivers that let you run the preamp from the DAW if you want to record directly into the computer. What you might find more convenient is one of the newer model portable recorders that let you plug high quality microphones into them and supply them with phantom power. I've been really pleased with the Zoom H5. It sounds good with the built in stereo microphones, but even better when I plug my normal mics into it. Very quiet for recording: no fan noise like I get from the computer. Would be good for a portable system if you have access to one of those perfect recording spaces on occasion. Good luck with microphone placement. I've found that to be the most significant factor in recording after the room itself. Kym
|
|
|
Post by vikingblues on Apr 30, 2015 11:15:41 GMT
Thanks Kym - I know what you mean about the Alesis having a preamp .... silly me, didn't explain myself properly! I'd been thinking in terms of a possibly using a seperate Preamp with the XLR out going to TRS input on the Alesis with the levels set high on the preamp and set low on the Alesis. Although I understand from Alesis that it is OK running XLR out from the preamp to XLR input on the ALesis as long as Phontom Power is off on the Alesis (I believe on some cheaper interfaces this is not a good idea as the signal levels are wrong). I ended up using the Alesis when I had Vista and a Laptop for music recording. Hardly anything would work for recording on that damn set up , as I found out to my cost! The Alesis has worked fine with most DAWs including Samplitude Music Studio which I have used most as it seems to run in a way that is intuitive to me ... now on my third version of the DAW. I just couldn't get my head around the way some very popular DAWs work (like Reaper for example). I do quake at the thought of trying to use a new interface and possibly a new DAW as a result, as I recall the horrors of wrestling with getting these things to work in the past and I know my aging brain will have even more troubles coping this time! Trouble with this sort of Gear / Software you're pretty much on your own to fix it and you can't return it if it's not compatible with your system as it's considered your fault for not getting it to work. That's a good point you make about the potential for a stand alone recorder. I do have a portable recorder but my (pretty cheap) Yamaha Pocketrak wouldn't be fit for the external XLR purposes. To be honest I've not had a lot of success in finding stand alone recording devices which get used long term, and some I've found myself still referring to the manual for basic functions after a few months. 3 previous stand alone recorders have ended up gathering dust and then being sold. The Zoom H5 does seem to get a very good feedback on line generally, so I will take a careful look at the possibility. It would also mean being able to record in a variety of locations with different acoustic properties. As you rightly say the room itself has a big impact on sound. It would need to be a machine geared up to get the most from acoustic guitar recordings and the H5 seems to be ticking the right boxes. Mark
|
|
|
Post by andyhowell on May 1, 2015 8:24:15 GMT
The Zooms are not bad as interfaces but not quite as clean. If you go down the interface route use one of the best makes — Focusrite for example — main reason because the driver software will be up to date!
|
|
|
Post by vikingblues on May 1, 2015 10:01:13 GMT
The Zooms are not bad as interfaces but not quite as clean. If you go down the interface route use one of the best makes — Focusrite for example — main reason because the driver software will be up to date! Good to hear about the Focusrite as they were what I was mainly looking on the possible interface upgrade route. At least in part I was looking at Focusrite due to the positive comments generally about their preamps. The Scarlett models with 2 mic preamps seemed possibilities. An interesting thing about the current Alesis interface - as Alesis puts it - " This product is class compliant; it does not require drivers". ASIO4All works fine with it too. I do, as alluded to in my earlier post, keep getting cold feet on a new interface though, because of the issues I've had in the past with getting them to work (or not work!). I used to enjoy purring new software and hardware on a computer. I now just find it a pain in the Derry Air. Funny - I remember thinking when I found myself converting to acoustic from electric guitar (with all it's pedals, amps, etc) - "at least all I'll need to think about now on gear is the guitar". Yeah - right Mark! I played around a bit yesterday with headphones on listening to the changes caused by movements of body and guitar while the feet are in the same position. Some very noticeable variations in tone result. Shame when ones natural instinct is to sway along with the musical flow. Also shame when that musical flow is then inhibited by the need to stand stock still. Ah well. Mark
|
|
|
Post by scripsit on May 1, 2015 10:36:22 GMT
The Zooms are not bad as interfaces but not quite as clean. If you go down the interface route use one of the best makes — Focusrite for example — main reason because the driver software will be up to date! The Zoom H5 uses the same preamps as the H6 (only has two rather than four). There is a test of the Zoom H6 against a much more expensive preamp which you might find interesting here: www.homebrewedmusic.com/2013/08/28/zoom-h6-vs-rme-ufx/Fran Guidry does lots of blind testing of recording gear and his site is well worth looking through if you are interested in audio and video. He's good at creating objective comparisons of common gear, some of which are disconcerting if you are thinking of buying expensive stuff. I use a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 myself in my permanent setup, and am pleased with it, but at least on my rig can't identify the Zoom as being any less 'clean'. In my experience microphone self-noise is a lot more significant than anything from the preamp, once you get past a certain level of quality. That's the majority of the fuzz that sits at the bottom of the recording even when you've isolated fans and fridges and cat noises and the like. Kym
|
|
|
Post by andyhowell on May 1, 2015 18:08:35 GMT
The Zooms are not bad as interfaces but not quite as clean. If you go down the interface route use one of the best makes — Focusrite for example — main reason because the driver software will be up to date! The Zoom H5 uses the same preamps as the H6 (only has two rather than four). There is a test of the Zoom H6 against a much more expensive preamp which you might find interesting here: www.homebrewedmusic.com/2013/08/28/zoom-h6-vs-rme-ufx/Fran Guidry does lots of blind testing of recording gear and his site is well worth looking through if you are interested in audio and video. He's good at creating objective comparisons of common gear, some of which are disconcerting if you are thinking of buying expensive stuff. I use a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 myself in my permanent setup, and am pleased with it, but at least on my rig can't identify the Zoom as being any less 'clean'. I have a Zoom H6 Kym. Recording my Bayerdynamic mics through the H6 is not as good as using my main interface - an old but clean sounding Edirol. That being said the Zoom is pretty good as an interface - just doesn't seem to have quite as full a sound. I think I prefer recording decent mics on the Zoom rather than using it as an interface. it is very much a case of horses for courses. I prefer to record using a dedicated interface but as ever here cost differences are not always consummate with similar quality differences. I will probably be investing in a new interface soon, one with 4 XLR inputs. Steinberg is on my shortlist. I know my H6 has four XLR interfaces but I prefer an interface!
|
|
|
Post by vikingblues on May 13, 2015 11:31:56 GMT
The Zooms are not bad as interfaces but not quite as clean. If you go down the interface route use one of the best makes — Focusrite for example — main reason because the driver software will be up to date! The Zoom H5 uses the same preamps as the H6 (only has two rather than four). There is a test of the Zoom H6 against a much more expensive preamp which you might find interesting here: www.homebrewedmusic.com/2013/08/28/zoom-h6-vs-rme-ufx/Fran Guidry does lots of blind testing of recording gear and his site is well worth looking through if you are interested in audio and video. He's good at creating objective comparisons of common gear, some of which are disconcerting if you are thinking of buying expensive stuff. I use a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 myself in my permanent setup, and am pleased with it, but at least on my rig can't identify the Zoom as being any less 'clean'. In my experience microphone self-noise is a lot more significant than anything from the preamp, once you get past a certain level of quality. That's the majority of the fuzz that sits at the bottom of the recording even when you've isolated fans and fridges and cat noises and the like. Kym Thank you for the link Kym and sorry I've taken so long to respond to the post. It's been useful to get the advice from the forum here and the links I've been given have given me a lot of food for thought. Whether I'd say it's clarified things ...... ........ maybe not quite yet!
I am tempted by the upgrade to Focusrite on the interface, albeit I have trepidation about changing anything on computers these days.
I am also tempted by the better portable recorders that take external microphones partly because it opens possibilities of more varied room ambience with its portability. The fact that the likes of the Zoom 5 also act as an interface makes me think it might be a good initial step as it still has a good function just as a recorder even if I can't get it to perform in its interface guise.
The Zoom H5 uses the same preamps as the H6 (only has two rather than four). There is a test of the Zoom H6 against a much more expensive preamp which you might find interesting here: www.homebrewedmusic.com/2013/08/28/zoom-h6-vs-rme-ufx/Fran Guidry does lots of blind testing of recording gear and his site is well worth looking through if you are interested in audio and video. He's good at creating objective comparisons of common gear, some of which are disconcerting if you are thinking of buying expensive stuff. I use a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 myself in my permanent setup, and am pleased with it, but at least on my rig can't identify the Zoom as being any less 'clean'. I have a Zoom H6 Kym. Recording my Bayerdynamic mics through the H6 is not as good as using my main interface - an old but clean sounding Edirol. That being said the Zoom is pretty good as an interface - just doesn't seem to have quite as full a sound. I think I prefer recording decent mics on the Zoom rather than using it as an interface. it is very much a case of horses for courses. I prefer to record using a dedicated interface but as ever here cost differences are not always consummate with similar quality differences. I will probably be investing in a new interface soon, one with 4 XLR inputs. Steinberg is on my shortlist. I know my H6 has four XLR interfaces but I prefer an interface! From what you've said there Andy am I right in thinking you find recording onto the Zoom (with decent microphones) and then transferring the files to the recording software is better than using those same microphones with the Zoom as an interface?
There is something that appeals to me about following a route that does not involve risking larger sums of money on a piece of gear that's 100% dependent on my getting it working properly with the computer. Contrary to that of course there is the way that the visual controls on a large computer screen make operations so much simpler and intuitive than fiddling around with menu wheels and buttons on a postage stamp mini screen on a portable recorder.
Many thanks for your advice - sorry about the delay in responding to your last post.
.........................................
In any event things have also got a bit derailed with my hitting the buffers on the microphones part of making recordings. I'd thought I'd a solution but the Oktavas have gone back now. So it's still a question of finding all the right bits of the whole recording chain. There is also the question of whether a mixer that can also act as an interface is worth considering.
Not to mention the question of whether the quality of the player merits the expenditure!
Mark
|
|
|
Post by vikingblues on Oct 14, 2015 19:23:54 GMT
About 6 months since I tried the dual Oktava microphones and it all went phut for tone not being right for me and teh microphones not being well matched. I've been very happy with an Avantone CK-1 small diaphragm condenser microphone I got in May. I've also been pleased with the results I got using this as a dual microphone with my large diaphragm condenser AKG3000C. After having a second CK-1 in an on-line basket for several weeks the nerve cracked and I bit the bullet. It arrived today and I have done a test this evening. New mic with a Cardiod capsule and old mic with an Omni. My immediate thought on starting to hear the playback was - "why the hell did I take so long to get the second CK-1"??!! Beautifully rich sounds to my ears and this is just recording a cheap £230 guitar. There are no effects added and nothing changed on the EQ in the DAW - I've not even panned the two tracks apart for more body to the sound 'cos it just don't need it. I was playing in a room with lots of soft furnishings and the wall in front of the guitar was a good 15 feet away. So that's all natural reverb from the guitar in the recording. Cardioid mic pointed at join of neck and body in the traditional way, the Omni is directed towards the lower bout of the guitar but of course it's picking sound up from everywhere. Dual Mics - Omni + CardioidThese are the separate tracks if you want to compare but it needs good equipment to hear the subtleties properly. Omni Mic OnlyCardioid Mic Only Whoo-hooh! Yes - that rarity - a happy VikingBlues. Probably need to wait till 2016 for the next time that happens. Mark
|
|
|
Post by scripsit on Oct 14, 2015 22:36:35 GMT
Great that you've got the results you were looking for.
I'd suggest measuring and photographing just about everything about the setup to ensure you can reproduce it, especially if you have to break down your rig for real life use of the room.
However... I downloaded your WAV file. In my DAW the two tracks making up your first, stereo recording are a little unusual: they appear to be (and sound) identical. In my experience, this is most unusual for a stereo recording: the body side almost always has a little bigger bass and there are usually visual volume differences in some passages.
The default 'phase meter' I put on the stereo track shows a solid vertical line for the entire track, whereas a normal stereo recording, even with well placed microphones, will have a few wobbles from side to side. I also notice that your individual microphone downloads are identical in file size. Again, this is unusual for different sources.
I assume you 'normalised' your stereo track because the peaks sit right on 0.0db, but again it's most unusual for the peaks on a stereo track to be so perfectly aligned.
Are you sure your stereo recording is not just the sound of one microphone 'doubled'? That is, you've got a good sound from one microphone which is duplicating itself in your recording device.
Kym
|
|
|
Post by vikingblues on Oct 15, 2015 7:56:39 GMT
Great that you've got the results you were looking for. I'd suggest measuring and photographing just about everything about the setup to ensure you can reproduce it, especially if you have to break down your rig for real life use of the room. However... I downloaded your WAV file. In my DAW the two tracks making up your first, stereo recording are a little unusual: they appear to be (and sound) identical. In my experience, this is most unusual for a stereo recording: the body side almost always has a little bigger bass and there are usually visual volume differences in some passages. The default 'phase meter' I put on the stereo track shows a solid vertical line for the entire track, whereas a normal stereo recording, even with well placed microphones, will have a few wobbles from side to side. I also notice that your individual microphone downloads are identical in file size. Again, this is unusual for different sources. I assume you 'normalised' your stereo track because the peaks sit right on 0.0db, but again it's most unusual for the peaks on a stereo track to be so perfectly aligned. Are you sure your stereo recording is not just the sound of one microphone 'doubled'? That is, you've got a good sound from one microphone which is duplicating itself in your recording device. Kym That's got me worried Kym! But thank you for listening to it and going to that time and trouble in trying to check it out - most helpful of you. The mics are on a stereo bar which helps for consistency of position - line up to the join of body with one mic and the other mic is as it should be - just get the angle it is pointing at to be consistent. I've done a few screenshots from the two tracks on my DAW. They do, I'll agree, look very similar, but when the waveforms are studied closely one is not a copy of the other. The method I used to connect up the mics is the same as I've used for the CK-1 and AKG mic combination where there were significant differences in waveforms. Though the mics tended to be further apart in those recordings as the AKG is on it's own stand. I've checked the settings on the two tracks and they are both set to mono (as you can tell from the DAW track in the screenshots)) and I checked that they are set to receive from the two different ASIO channels on the USB interface. ASIO 1 to track 1, ASIO 2 to track 2. e.g. Difference in the two spikes on the first peak. I think there is indication of slightly more dynamic range on track 2. e.g. The waveform comes down in more of a curve on track two after the first peak e.g. Relative heights of the different peaks vary on the two tracks. But very similar - can't decide if this is good or bad - as I like the sound so much! ------- I don't talk about any of this recording stuff with any expert knowledge. I am a bit of a technophobe and getting more so as the years go by. On the file sizes. I downloaded the individual tracks by exporting from the DAW with the other track muted. I've noticed with my DAW that when I do this the file size is always the same so both tracks together, just track 1 or just track 2 are the same size. I think I am hearing differences on the two individual tracks when I play them back here - in particular it seems that the Omni track sounds a little less dry and less focussed - but then that's maybe me making myself hear what I want to hear. I don't know what happens to tracks that go to box.com but I get the feeling that there's a degradation in sound quality despite it being wav. I didn't normalise my tracks oddly enough - as far as the full recording of the two mics together I changed nothing at all on any settings on the DAW other than to select the tracks. I then just exported and didn't even go into the mastering section. When I exported the individual files of the separate mics I did boost the master volume equally on the two so they wouldn't be at a lower playback volume than the dual mic track - that was the only adjustment but maybe I shouldn't have done that? Anyway no chance of doing any more tests till tonight. Hopefully there's not something wrong with my recording system / DAW. I'm wondering whether having a Cardioid capsule on both mics would be a good way of getting a better comparison of different waveforms. Because the omni is also picking up some of its sound from exactly where the cardioid mic is pointing it'll be more likely to resemble it ... maybe!!?? Mark
|
|
|
Post by scripsit on Oct 15, 2015 9:00:13 GMT
I didn't want to unsettle you, and it could be that I'm completely wrong here. It was just surprising to me that two completely different microphones, spaced apart, would create identical tracks. On my DAW I see this from your downloaded WAV. To me the tracks appear identical, except for a slight volume difference. And when I put the phase tool in it remains like this for the entire track. This is really unusual even in a well balanced recording, especially with a spaced pair (it might happen with XY). One of my own stereo recordings, spaced pair with identical microphones, looks like below. I've jacked the volume up, so I think the differences on each side can be seen. And lastly, when I put the phase tool on it I get something like this (I tried to screenshot a particularly vivid example: most of it is closer to a tall thin ellipse than this plot). So, I'll leave it at that. Kym
|
|