Topic: High Frequencies In Outdoor Recordings

[chris319]

Not to pile on raymonda, but all you have to do is listen to the recording. It sounds like crap. It is unacceptable by any standard. In that regard, discussing the subject in terms of Hertz is not very meaningful.

[mfrench]

hz is of plenty of value.
Every one of those peaks above 10k is well above the suggested maximum high frequency that might be expected to be captured (paraphrase).
And every one of those peaks above 10k is a held sustained note, all of which have the possibility to be brought to far above the human hearing range.

[raymonda]

Not to pile on raymonda, but all you have to do is listen to the recording. It sounds like crap. It is unacceptable by any standard. In that regard, discussing the subject in terms of Hertz is not very meaningful.

I'm not sure how you are piling on. I agree that there were problems. I agreed from the onset and stated why I thought there was a major problem. However, we disagree as to what the primary problem is. Not that the other problems are not significant but rather predictable when considering it was recorded outside and far field, i.e., ambient (Omni), first row, head level.

Also, some of the wind actually increases the low end frequency by 30-40 dbs from 175-11hz, not just 15-20. Are folks really arguing that this is not a problem that would have a significant impact on the frequency plot and sound of the recording? Not to mention the challenge the electronics and speaker would have replicating this noise.

To me this so obvious that I find it amazing that others don't agree or at least acknowledge there is a problem and that my statement is correct.

My final comment, albeit, "stupid and ignorant" is, harmonics are not reinforced in open air as they are in a reverberant environment. A reverberant environment will/can cause peak and nodes depending on the demensions and reflectivity, or lack or reflectivity of the room. Thus, in open air, at a distance, you will not get the same frequency plot that you will get indoor. You usually get more fundimentals than harmonics.

Yeh, I'm sure I sound like I saying the world is flat but hey, I'm ignorant and my 30 years of recording and 40 years playing has taught me nothing but to be ignorant. 

[mfrench]

its violin torture to bring them outside anyway.

[raymonda]

Overtones my friend, overtones. It does not have any fundimentals up there. And, it should be relatively low in nature when copared to the primary note. 3,500 second harmonic is 7,000.... 3rd harmonic is 14,000 and 4th is 28,000.......etc...... If you are getting the db level as high as the fundimental note, there are some problems which will obscure the timbre.

WRONG.  An overtone louder than the fundamental could BE the timbre of the instrument.  Extremely common for example on piano in the bass register, especially for an upright.  And a 3.5kHz fundamental is very atypical on violin.  That would be one of the highest harmonics (playing technique terminology) that you'd hear from the soloist in a violin concerto, not quite what we have here.

Since you persist, a demonstration is pending.  Please note I don't play violin or piano, so the emphasis will be on frequency measurement, not performing skills.

I'm not sure what you are arguing. I think we agree. Many variables will effect the harmonics and harmonics effect the timbre and some harmonics can exceed the fundimental....very common in percussion........ So, where are we disagreeing.

Are you saying that there is no difference in the sustain of a note or the amplitude of the harmonics in a reverberant environment vs open air, far field recording. If so, then I guess we disagree. But I would assume your knowledge would agree with this.

Please see my other prvious last comment regarding my thoughts on this recording. 

[raymonda]

Anyway, before I post them, you have made another fundamental  error I didn't catch before:  the overtone series of a 3.5kHz fundamental is 7, 10.5, 14, 17.5, 21, 24.5, 28, etc., not merely 7, 14, 28, and further 2x.  That would be octaves, not all of the overtones.  Big difference in timbre, would you agree?[quote author=raymonda

True, those are octaves. In my attempt to simplfy I just mention them. But sometimes I quess it is important to be padantic. Thank you for pointing this out.

[raymonda]

Mshilarious,

Other than argue the fine points of my earlier sweeping generalization and make that the central theme of your next thesis, you have yet to comment on what I have indicated as the primary problem with this recording and its implecations. Do you agree or not?

[raymonda]

Then I quess that is where we part. Without the wind noise the recording would have had the typical sound of a two point, outdoor farfield recording. "Dry and lifeless" but acceptable to most novice recordest.

BTW, my generalization where not incorrect in the context of this recording, which I was relating to.

I stand by my statement that you do not often see much high frequency information recording this type of music outdoors. To me, looking at the wave, this is what I would expect and what I saw. Fundementals usually standout and dominate under these conditions. Harmonics get lost. (Please name the great orchestra recordings that were made outdoors. How about, none!!!! Oh yeh, that's a generalization, too.

The problem is not in the mic but rather the outdoors and the wind. I could listen to this recording without the wind problem, would it be great, no. It would capture the moment but not win a grammy for sound engineering. And for this recording i assume Chris was trying to capture the moment and not do a professional job.

If he is trying to do a professional job, then, as I stated, he would best be served with by using appropriate windscreens and or a high pass filter if screens alone won't do the job.

[raymonda]

Well how am I supposed to know what you are arguing when you keep changing it?

Your first comment:

Quote
I will take a listen and also look at the wave but if you were only recording strings I wouldn't expect much information beyong 8,000

Ray Clarify (under these conditions. I would have assumed that would have been understood. Of course it would be differant under other condition.)

And then:

Quote
The primary frequency of strings do not extend that far. That is why you don't see much information up top.

Ray Clarify (Under these condition overtones/harmonics will not be reinforced much, thus the fundemental will dominate)

and again:

Quote
A violin's frequencies fall within 200 to 3.5khz. The table attached should help you out a bit on why there is little information above 6,000 hz on your recording.

So your persistent original argument was that the violin has little information in the harmonic series above 6 to 8kHz.  Do you still maintain that position, or have you modified it?

Ray Clarify ( I never said that but rather was saying that under these conditions it wouldn't. Again, under ideal condition or other conditions the harmonics/overtones would extend but we were discussing this recording not recordings in your studio)

And then:

Quote
Relative to a paino a violin does not cover nearly rhe same range. Sorry, but that's just a fact.

It's true of the fundamental range but very untrue of the overtone series.

Ray Clarify (I was discussing fundimentals not overtones.)

and then:

Quote
If you are getting the db level as high as the fundimental note, there are some problems which will obscure the timbre.

Now an argument that an instrument's fundamental frequency must be louder than its overtones.  But wait, you modified that:

Quote
Many variables will effect the harmonics and harmonics effect the timbre and some harmonics can exceed the fundimental....very common in percussion........ So, where are we disagreeing.

Ray Clarify (Over simplification on my part. I should have said that differant environments will effect overtones in differant ways. If the environment alters the overtone dramtically it will create problems with the timbre. Try playing your violin in the shower.)

So I haven't the slightest clue what you actually think, but what you have posted is misleading because it contains very basic errors in understanding of how instruments generate sound.

Ray Clarify (It appears that you took my comments about this specific recording and made a sweeping generalization to include that it was absolute under all conditions. Now that is silly and explains your padantic responses. I would have assumed that you understood that I was commenting about this recording and the conditions it was made under, since that is what the topic is). 

Stay tuned for recordings . . .

Ray Clarify(I have hundreds and hundreds hours of my own recordings that I can reference and that I feel support my understanding of sound).

So, go to your church and record a violin from the first row and then go to the nearest playground and record the violin from 10 feet. If you think the frequency response and timbre is going to be the same well............ I think you will be surprised that there will be a difference.

[raymonda]

Now piano, a crap out of tune upright.  Sorry about that, the out-of-tuneness shows as a bit of warbling in the peaks, but I have young kids who bang on it, stand on it, color on it, etc., so tuning is not a real high priority.

Low G and high E, same fundamentals as the violin example, on the same chart.  Note the difference in the overtone series.  Which instrument has a higher possible fundamental (not shown)?  The piano (actually I managed a 3.5kHz fundamental playing a harmonic on violin, but it sounded really bad so I didn't record it.  I digress . . .)  Which instrument has more high-frequency content?  You tell me.

What are you arguing. That mic position will change the way the intruments timbre is percieved. (Well, of course) That your upright is crappy (or both)? I don't think you ever had an argument with me on either of these issues.

[raymonda]

(Well how am I supposed to know what you are arguing when you keep changing it?)

I wasn't arguing but rather stating my observations. My main statement was that 20-40 db wind noise is the most distubing problem with this recording, not the lack of overtones or reverb. Sure, you could EQ the wind out but he cure might be worse than the illness. And finally, the truncated high end is what I would expect under these conditions.

[chris319]

And for this recording i assume Chris was trying to capture the moment and not do a professional job.

Raymond, you're not even paying attention. Here is what I said in the O.P.:

I tried eight different mics (I was shooting out mics that day).

To put it in more explicit terms, I'm trying to figure out why my recordings, whether recorded indoors or out, lack sparkle and brilliance. They range from dull to sounding like sh*t. This was the first time I tried omnis and there were six of them.

If moving air currents are blowing the high frequencies away from the mic, fine, but I would like to see proof of the acoustical phenomenon behind it.

[chris319]

mshilarious -

Thank you very, very much for doing that. It is very revealing and I think it pinpoints my problem. I am even going to send your gifs to our conductor.

First recording was standing with a mic at seated waist level, about four feet away.  Second recording is sitting with the mic about 6' up, also four feet away.  That yields about a 6' difference in placement height with respect to the instrument.

I'm having a little trouble following your description. Let's try it another way. What would you estimate the angles were between the mic and the instrument? Let's use as our reference 0 degrees for pointing straight down, 90 degrees for pointing horizontally, and 180 degrees for pointing straight up.

[raymonda]

And for this recording i assume Chris was trying to capture the moment and not do a professional job.

Raymond, you're not even paying attention. Here is what I said in the O.P.:

I tried eight different mics (I was shooting out mics that day).

To put it in more explicit terms, I'm trying to figure out why my recordings, whether recorded indoors or out, lack sparkle and brilliance. They range from dull to sounding like sh*t. This was the first time I tried omnis and there were six of them.

If moving air currents are blowing the high frequencies away from the mic, fine, but I would like to see proof of the acoustical phenomenon behind it.

Chris,

I was paying attention. I guess you didn't make it clear whether you meant "do they lack sparkle under the condition you were recording" or "in comparison to a professional recording under ideal recording conditions". I took it to mean under the condition you were recording, e.g. far field, outdoors and windy conditions. And, I stated they are as I would have expected considering the conditions. Dry, no reverberent trails and lacking in overtones.

I'm sorry if my answer didn't appeal to the broader question.

But to answer the broader question, of course it doesn't sparkle, you were recording outdoors, far field in windy conditions, how did you expect it to sound.

And, as I have stated over and over, which apparently is not problematic for others, the biggest problem is the 20 to 40dbs of wind blasts coloring and distorting the low end and entire recording.

What does it matter if it doesn't sparkle, if you have all these problems in the low end. Damn, you can at least boast the high end 1.5 to 2db's @ around 10K to make it brighter but you can't correct the wreck that is going on down in the bottom.

[chris319]

I have SDC and dynamic mic recordings I can post. For your convenience here is the mic list again:

CAD e70, omni capsule
MXL 991 with capacitor mod, omni capsule
MXL 991 unmodified, omni capsule
Studio Projects B-1
Heil Sound PR40
E-V RE27
E-V RE55
E-V 655C