Recording Solo FLute (Part Deux)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Apologies to the group for having to start a new thread in order to respond
to David Morgan's post... my newsreader occasionally loses parts of threads
(including the last few posts contained within my previous thread on this
topic), but I saw on Google that he had responded...

David said:

>Hi Neil,
>I'm a day late and a dollar short, but I really didn't believe that
>anything I had
>to say at the time was positive enough to benefit your end result. As the
>conversation went on, it really sounded like you has what you wanted except
>perhaps a little more distance & ambience. It's even more difficult now,
>to
>speak after the likes of Karl, Hank, Mike Rivers and most especially Mike
>Mermagen's observations were all offered up in time for you to consider
>their application on Sunday. I hope all went well.

Yep, it turned out much to the players liking... thanks to all who
responded.

>I also hope you'll give up another sample of the final recording.

I'll be glad to... Here are links to clips of the final takes she went with.
They're each 16/44.1 stereo wav's, and just under 30 seconds each, and a
little over 4 megs in size:

http://www.saqqararecords.com/imag [...] 20Clip.wav

http://www.saqqararecords.com/imag [...] 20Clip.wav


It's kinda interesting that for the two pieces she had to record, we ended
up going with pretty different tones/micing for each one. More close-ish
micing for the Bach piece that you heard a clip from before, and more
distant micing for the Genzmer piece (not sure of the title, but those of
you who are classical buffs will recognize, it - I did, and I certainly
don't have what I would consider to be a broad knowledge base of classical
material). For the Bach piece, we went with the Royer-modded MXL, with a
little bit of the Earthworks omni's blended in - the mics were about 4.5
feet away from the instrument; for the Genzmer piece, we went with the
Earthworks pair only, about 10 feet away from the source - she also faced
completely away frm the mics on that cut... she wanted to try it & see how
it sounded. Unfortunately, you can hear a little low end rumble on that clip
because after I moved the mics and we tracked it, I realized they were a bit
too close to the door - I rolled off some lows, which helped, but you can
still hear it a bit. I wanted to suggest another take, reversing the sides
of the room the player & the mics were on, respectively, but she liked that
particular take, so that's what the final version will be.

>My initial thoughts were pretty much along the same lines as the rest of
>the "more ambience" crowd... the recording seemed to be a wee bit too
>much 'in your face', which did indeed reveal flaws in the performance.

I tend to agree, especially after giving it another listen the next day, but
she wanted detail & also wanted it to be more or less bereft of ambience, so
that's what I was going for at the time.


>I'm interested in some details pertaining to the room that you used.
>It sounded to me like there really wasn't much reflective ambience to
>be taken advantage of. If I had to guess, I'd have said you were in a
>relatively small room, say, not much larger than 14 x 16 feet with a
>low acoustic ceiling, carpet and plenty of dampening on the walls. It
>seemed like this was also a contributing factor in being able to pick
>out the small deficiencies in the performance. 'Stark' might fit here.

You've got it nailed to a large degree... the room is roughly 10'x14', 8.5'
ceilings, but it is actually VERY reflective in its bare state... one 10'
wall is brick, no "popcorn" on the ceiling (just lightly textured plaster),
one of the long walls is almost completely made of glass, with two 6'x6'
windows taking up most if it, and the floor is terra cotta tile. What it has
for acoustic treatment is really just an improvised setup as follows: a sofa
up against the brick wall side, eight Auralex corner bass traps (2 stacked
in each corner, on the floor), two hanging panels made of OC-703 glued to
1/8" thick pieces of MDF & covered in fabric for appearance's sake... those
are hung on the wall that's opposite the glass, and centered about 3' to
each side from the middle of the wall (these are removable, they just rest
on small anchor hooks, I have a third one of these, but decided that the
room was getting pretty dead already, so I left it off). On the side with
the glass, I have a set of full-length curtains of average thickness -
nothing special there, just standard white curtains, and placed just in
front of the curtains are two three-section foldable screens (they're about
4' wide when in the partly folded/standing positions, and 70" high) backed
with a somewhat dense fabric material of some kind... I came across these
accidentally; they were cheap and look nice at the same time, so I grabbed
'em up thinking: "what the hell, I'll see what they do", and I used a 5'x7'
area rug on the floor just to cut some of the flutter between the floor &
the ceiling. As ramshackle & half-ass as this description comes across, it
turned a completely unusable room, with a really "zingy" flutter, into that
which you heard. So there's all the details... amazing in a way that the
room could get so dead with just this improvised setup, but then again it's
not a big room, so a little goes a long way.


>Sometimes, using good mics and preamps can work against you.
>The combination of the pair and the spot mic may have been a little
>detrimental. It sounded as if they were each hearing something that
>the other didn't like, which seemed to actually make the recording
>sound somewhat 'smaller'.

Yeah, at one point, she became concerned that they were picking up too much
detail, so we tried a Baby Bottle, which is a little more midrangey, and
that was still too much detail (at least at the time, based on what she was
thinking she should be hearing at that stage), so then I threw an SM-57 up
there, thinking maybe that she wasn't used to hearing herself recorded with
that level of clarity (despite the fact that she's been playing for some
time, she's only recorded a couple of times in any kind of studio setting) &
had her play a few lines, but upon listening to it, she said: "Oh, no, those
other ones are superior".


>The majority of anything I might have added was definitely covered
>by Karl and Mike Mermagen - - though I might differ slightly with Karl's
>intent on keeping the track totally dry. He's more than correct about
>what the judges will be listening for, but depending on the calibre of
>the purpose for the audition, I'm keenly aware that given an abundance
>of entries and too few judges, that it's all too common to have entries
>which aren't pleasing to listen to, end up being passed over. I'm inclined
>to think that a wee bit of reverb, barely enough to simulate what appeared
>to be missing ambience in your recording room, wouldn't have hurt.

I got her to try a little 'verb just to check out & see if she liked it...
we ended up going with a TINY bit of reverb... small hall, barely
perceptible.


>I'd like to know what the audition was actually for. (?)

It was for this:
http://www.nfaonline.org/conv2005.asp


>I was surprised to read that you were dealing with a Doctorate in music
>with a seat in
>the local symphony. One thing I'll assume is that she doesn't actually
>do a lot of recording as a solo or a part of a small ensemble.
>I say this because along with Mike M.'s comments about the technique
>problems
>that were revealed by the quality of the mics and their close positioning,
>I could practically hear her heart beating during the take you posted. I
>actually assumed this was a *much* younger player.

Nope, she's done hardly any recording, as I mentioned. She was indeed very
nervous at first, and in her defense, she teaches classes & gives lessons
all day long, so on the evening we did those mic auditions she was tired at
the time... which I imagine is not the best state to be in if you're gonna
play any kind of wind instrument. In any event,

>So.... let me apologize for not putting in my .02 cents worth earlier and
>give you and your flautist my best wishes.

No problemo... well, she called me from her car on the way home - as she was
listening to it - to say how thrilled she was with the way it turned out; so
all's well that ends well in the realm of the client being happy... not sure
what level of competition she'll be up against, but I guess we'll see!

Some pretty cool stuff you mentioned, BTW, about some of the folks you've
gotten to work with!

Neil Henderson

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Neil,
I'm presently screening tapes for the svmmer festival that I teach. One
CD was completely distorted from beginning to end. I contacted the
performer and she said she made the recording herself. That wovld be
abovt as bad as it gets. (Except for sending the wrong recording) Some
are good, bvt none are great.The best stvdent recordings seem to come
from a well recorded live performance in a nice hall where they had
their recital.

Another colleagve of mine made her own tape in her living room (with
distortion and all) and of covrse, did not pass the tape rovnd for the
Metropolitan Opera Orchestra. However, the mvsician's vnion in NY has
some law that yov mvst give someone a chance at a live avdition if they
reqvest it. To make a long story short... she won the job.

Mike

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Neil Henderson" <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote in message...

> Here are links to clips of the final takes she went with.
> They're each 16/44.1 stereo wav's, and just under 30 seconds each, and a
> little over 4 megs in size:
>
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/imag [...] 20Clip.wav
>
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/imag [...] 20Clip.wav

Is this all that she's turning in for the competition? The judges will have
one heck of a time if there are many entries. <g>

I think they turned out fine. <damn the traffic torpedoes, full speed ahead...>
And as long as she's happy, you should be....

This gives me a little insight to the Earthworks omnis, which I've only used
once before for a church organ. (No, not that kind... a B-3 with a noisy Leslie
mounted in the wall). Artie Turner, who I haven't seen here lately, loaned them
to me for the takes. They must be very good mics, because the results they
garnered for me seemed like overkill in my situation. I'd rather have shoved
a couple of 57's up on the leslie and be done with all the noise, but he had
the all-in-one-box remote gear (Earthworks to Great River, MP2NV?) and
we were doing that one together. His choice of live mics that day was far
more refined that mine would have been.

> It's kinda interesting that for the two pieces she had to record, we ended
> up going with pretty different tones/micing for each one. More close-ish
> micing for the Bach piece that you heard a clip from before, and more
> distant micing for the Genzmer piece (not sure of the title, but those of
> you who are classical buffs will recognize, it - I did, and I certainly
> don't have what I would consider to be a broad knowledge base of classical
> material). For the Bach piece, we went with the Royer-modded MXL, with a
> little bit of the Earthworks omni's blended in - the mics were about 4.5
> feet away from the instrument; for the Genzmer piece, we went with the
> Earthworks pair only, about 10 feet away from the source - she also faced
> completely away frm the mics on that cut... she wanted to try it & see how
> it sounded.

Interesting. Now you have me listening to these over and over to try and
distinguish the differences. They're remarkably similar for the differences
you describe.

Her performance was definitely better, but this is one gal who takes her
as-written dynamics *very* seriously... <g> ...probably not a negative to
the judges ears in such short pieces. There's an astonishing amount of
detail in the take where she was not only turned away from the mic, but
much farther away. The room was definitely talking, but not in a bad
way. I'm thinking that (other than player & instrument) this is the big
'consistency' between the two pieces, making them gel together well
given the variations.

> Yeah, at one point, she became concerned that they were picking up too
> much detail, so we tried a Baby Bottle, which is a little more midrangey, and
> that was still too much detail (at least at the time, based on what she was
> thinking she should be hearing at that stage), so then I threw an SM-57 up
> there, thinking maybe that she wasn't used to hearing herself recorded with
> that level of clarity (despite the fact that she's been playing for some
> time, she's only recorded a couple of times in any kind of studio setting) &
> had her play a few lines, but upon listening to it, she said: "Oh, no, those
> other ones are superior".

It's just because you haven't taken an old condenser body and put the
element from a 57 in there yet... to offer the proper disguise, of course.
After looking at an EW omni, a 57 is really ugly.

That part of my earlier comment about the higher quality mics actually
providing too much detail, is something to at least ponder. The Earthworks
really did make big play of the room... but I suppose that's their gig. ;-)

I think if she had not been both further and turned away from the mics on
that second piece, her dynamics and breath-attack (not general breathing)
might have become a stumbling block.

> I got her to try a little 'verb just to check out & see if she liked it...
> we ended up going with a TINY bit of reverb... small hall, barely
> perceptible.

Caught that... thought it was a little long, but waaay far back enough in
the mix that some others might not perceive it at all. This should be totally
inconsequential, and it definitely didn't hurt. Had you planned on making
it a bigger part of the mix, you would have needed to experiment with
shaping the reverb a little more toward being 'room-ish'.

Did you get an opportunity to track and keep anything on her done only
with a single cardioid condenser? (large or small dia.) I'd sure entertain
bing mailed the MXL track, if that was a cardioid.

So, did she offer to get you some passes to record her symphony?

DM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
news:QJ8Yd.62896$EL5.1643@trnddc05...
> Is this all that she's turning in for the competition? The judges will
> have
> one heck of a time if there are many entries. <g>

Well, the full cuts are longer than that if that's what you meant (~2
minutes for the Bach piece, and ~2 1/2 for the Genzmer one), those are just
short clips I uploaded; but those are the two required pieces that everyone
has to turn in. No options - so you can't turn in that version of "Flight of
the Bumblebee" that you've been practicing at double-tempo for the past 30
years.

> I think they turned out fine. <damn the traffic torpedoes, full speed
ahead...>
> And as long as she's happy, you should be....

I'm reasonably happy. I'm happy that she's happy. lol She wants to do more
stuff with me now (a couple of duets with a pianist, in a hall or church;
and also something with a guitar accompanying her), so I guess I'd better
get my classical recording chops together. Not my specialty, to be sure. I
still need to pick up a pair of good SDC cardioids, so I may as well get a
move on & do that in order to have some other options at my disposal - the
only other condensor pair I have besides the Earthworks omnis are Baby
Bottles.

>>For the Bach piece, we went with the Royer-modded MXL, with a
>> little bit of the Earthworks omni's blended in - the mics were about 4.5
>> feet away from the instrument; for the Genzmer piece, we went with the
>> Earthworks pair only, about 10 feet away from the source - she also faced
>> completely away frm the mics on that cut... she wanted to try it & see
>> how
>> it sounded.
>
> Interesting. Now you have me listening to these over and over to try and
> distinguish the differences. They're remarkably similar for the
> differences
> you describe.

Well, for one, check out the difference in the attack of the instrument on
each clip... that's where it's most apparent, IME.

> Her performance was definitely better, but this is one gal who takes her
> as-written dynamics *very* seriously... <g> ...probably not a negative to
> the judges ears in such short pieces.

Yeah, I got the impression they do judge on that, since she had me nuke a
take where she missed one - ONE dynamic notation.

> Did you get an opportunity to track and keep anything on her done only
> with a single cardioid condenser? (large or small dia.) I'd sure
> entertain
> bing mailed the MXL track, if that was a cardioid.

Yep, I can just export or solo the track that the MXL was on for the Bach
piece... I also haven't deleted the mic audition takes yet, so I've got a
few lines from that same piece with a B.L.U.E. Kiwi through an ISA428, and
my modded M147 through a Chandler TG2. You want me to e-mail you some short
wavs of those?

Neil Henderson

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
news:6LbYd.62910$EL5.52322@trnddc05...
>
> "Neil Henderson" <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:lF9Yd.4895$yp.395@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Thanks for the info on the takes... with the snippets labelled "final", I
> wasn't
> really sure how much length they had allotted for each submission.

Ahh... gotcha. But OTOH that's why I also put the word "clip" in the titles.

>> Yep, I can just export or solo the track that the MXL was on for the Bach
>> piece... I also haven't deleted the mic audition takes yet, so I've got a
>> few lines from that same piece with a B.L.U.E. Kiwi through an ISA428,
>> and
>> my modded M147 through a Chandler TG2. You want me to e-mail you some
>> short
>> wavs of those?
>
> If anyone chimes in who's already heard the Earthworks versions and wants
> to hear some samples of the other mics as well, post 'em and we'll go
> fetch.

You know what, David - maybe I'll just go ahead & post 'em up on the site.
Even though only a scant few people responded to the thread, those files
were accessed over 80 times; so apparently there's some interest or level of
curiosity from people other than those participating in the thread itself.
I'll try & do that this evening & will post the links here once it's done.

> I sorta' envy your experience with multiple pres... I'm all too often (but
> not to
> any real dismay) using multiple identical console pres, which is really
> more
> condusive to the way I work, but doesn't let me in on the cool tools
> people
> are feeding DAWs with.

Ya know, ever since I started messing with stand-alone pre's, I could care
less about having a console... I like being able to mix & match mics & pres
to obtain whatever individual qualities & coloration I'm going for (although
I could probably use a couple more pres - I've got 12 channels of reasonably
high-quality stuff at this time). Furthermore, while the last big project I
did was in another studio, with a large console, we used exactly one channel
of the SSL's mic pres, but we did use the console to mix with. That fact
notwithstanding, I'm also fine with mixing "in the box" to a large degree -
FWIW, I find that if you get your mix, then export 4 or 5 individual
stems/submixes, then bring them back into your DAW app & just render that
setup as your final mix, you can get much the same effect as mixing through
a console. No, I'm not trying to start another "summing wars" thread, and I
frankly don't have the technical knowledge to argue "why it sounds this
way", I just know it does... there is a perceptible difference in the depth
of the soundstage & the clarity you can obtain. It's not an immense
difference, but I think it's a difference on the plus side, nonetheless.

Neil Henderson

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote in message
news:39e8c1F5vqderU4@individual.net...
>> You know what, David - maybe I'll just go ahead & post 'em up on the
>> site. Even though only a scant few people responded to the thread, those
>> files were accessed over 80 times; so apparently there's some interest or
>> level of curiosity from people other than those participating in the
>> thread itself. I'll try & do that this evening & will post the links here
>> once it's done.
>
>
> *Chime*
>
> --thanks

OK, here are the links, and the filenames are pretty indicative of what they
are - they're all mono 44.1k/16-bit files:

http://www.saqqararecords.com/imag [...] -Av737.wav

http://www.saqqararecords.com/imag [...] ISA428.wav

http://www.saqqararecords.com/imag [...] -ChTG2.wav

I forgot about something when David was mentioning wanting to hear the other
mics, and that is that the Kiwi is in omni mode... he mentioned wanting to
hear the cardioid mics, but I figured I'd throw that one up there while I
was at it, in any event.

Neil Henderson