As somewhat of a wook who has been mostly focused on small acoustic jazz ensembles, but who has dabbled with a bit of large venue major act boom rooms, this thread covers a lot a really good thinking that made me think of something that is a little off-topic. Lately, I've been getting better and better at making my acoustic recordings, and it has to do with how close I am to the source. This was something I didn't worry about as much until more recently because I was still getting the hang of setting up, getting good levels, etc. (the basics). So, that brings me to a discussion about the direct-to-indirect ratio of sound. I've found the equalateral thing to obviously be a good starting point with acoustic performances, but I've also found there is more to it than that. See, I've had the luxury of getting a lot of stage-lip or on-stage placements lately, and a few of them have suffered from two problems.
Let's say you are recording a single acoustic guitar. You could use an XY and put the mics like an inch from the guitar itself. This is going to sound pretty dry and very up-front because of the close micing (not as dry as a dynamic SMxx mic into a board, but bear with me here). Now, if you moved your mic way, way back in a big room with loads of wood everywhere, you'd get a ton of reverb and echo in the recorded sound. This is a continueum from very close to very far away, which results in very different sounds. If you got the mics close enough with XY, it might even sound mono with no reverb (the direct sound is so loud that you can't even hear the indirect sound). As you move just a little bit back you'll start hearing more of the room's acoustics which will start giving a sense of space and a little bit more of a stereo image (remember I only have one instrument as the source). And, when you go way back, the direct sound becomes overwhelmed by the indirect sound, such that you hear much more space, reverb, and boominess. This suggests another "sweet spot," which doesn't have anything to do with the seperation/image per se, but the ratio of direct to indirect sound.
Now, I have found that as I get better judging this direct-indirect sweet spot with the left-to-right imaging sweet spot, at times it may not actually be an equilateral triangle for purely acoustic gigs -- it depends on the room to some extent. This realization has helped my acoustic recordings get even better lately. You need to find the right mix of room and direct source. This plays a major role in how dry or wet the recording is, and also plays a role in how spacious the recording sounds too. The second thing I've had some problems with onstage is how upfront the closer instruments are, which causes me to lower the gain, and to lose the balance with the rythm section in the back. By backing up a bit, the sounds have a chance to mix a little more before hitting the mics, and maybe even more importantly, the height of my mics can make a huge difference at attenuating the front-row performers, which helps to even the balance with the performers in the back row. Although, raising the mics real high stage lip usually isn't doable. These things have really helped me find the sweet spots for acoustic jazz recordings lately.
Anyway, back to Teddy's conversation... So, I think even with respect to acoustic environments, where there it is no doubt easier to tell the difference between stereo configs, I think the distance to the source plays a large role like previously said, but only up until a point where you can actually get in too close, where a close micing situation has its own problems for the imaging and reverb and spaciousness. Which makes me think that recording off the PA or stacks or whatever in many ways is really NO DIFFERENT than an acoustic recording. You have sources of sound that you are recording from pretty far back in the room. Sometimes the PA is reinforcing stage sound (smaller venue maybe), sometimes the PA is pretty much the entire sound you'll get. If you close mic'ed the PA, you wouldn't get any of the room at all (stack recording), and as you pull back from the stack, more indirect sound comes into play (more verb, more boom, more spaciousness). I agree with Brian, that the choice of setup still does make an audible difference, but I think that audible difference comes mainly from the way the indirect sound relates to the direct sound. Teddy might be right inasmuch as the direct sound might not be that different between pattern, but Brian might be right inasmuch that the spaciousness of the room, the verb, the boom, the "feeling" of space, might be changed by the config. When then mix together and get recorded, it makes it a little more subtle that the difference is there, but you may not find the difference when focusing on the direct sound, you may only really "hear" the difference with respect to the indirect sound. Does that make sense? Or am I talking jibberish? LOL!
Topic: Microphone Applications in Acoustic vs Amplified enviroments...Discussion.. (Read 4826 times)