Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Ask The Tapers => Topic started by: boolz on August 30, 2008, 09:50:02 PM
-
If any one feels inclined, I'd welcome critique of a Keb' Mo' taping I did recently. This is my second taping effort, but my first of an amplified show. It's good enough that I'm enjoying listening to it (unlike my first taping), but I'm trying to educate my ear and develop my skills, so I'd appreciate hearing from more experienced people.
These were recorded at 24 bit / 44.1 Hz, but the samples I'm posting here were converted to .mp3. I used cardioid mics into an Edirol r09hr, no batt box, plug-in power. To me, the only thing I'm not liking across the board, is a kind of "hollow" sound, like I'm hearing the room too much, if that makes any kind of sense. I don't know just how to describe it. The venue is a big barn like structure, seats about 1500 I think. No climate control, so several large barn doors are left open and people sit outside and listen. It was raining hard through most of the show, but I didn't hear it there. Seats were not ideal: dead center, but about 3/4 of the way back. Fantastic show. He played almost 2.5 hours, never left the stage.
Here's two cuts from the first part. Cut and amplified with Audacity:
The Itch (http://puggocking.com/audio/KebMo/TheItch.mp3)
City Boy (http://puggocking.com/audio/KebMo/CityBoy.mp3)
Second part of the show, the guy next to me revealed himself to be a very persistent, loud and percussive clapper. My ears were ringing there, so I've tried to tone him down in post. Here's an example of that. I ran a click and pop filter and also did some selected compression to bring him into line with the other clappers. Not totally successful, but I'm not that adept with the editing yet, either.
Respect Yourself (http://puggocking.com/audio/KebMo/RespectYourself.mp3)
All and any advice is welcome, both for post for this show and for future recording. I'm recording same venue again in about a week, better seats and will try it with batt box next time. And I've got a show I really care about (different venue) coming up the end of September, so I'm trying to get some skills by then. Thanks!
-
Always nice to see a female taper! :P
This is a very nice recording, especially for only a second attempt. I agree with you about the hollowness. I don't really notice it when it's only the band playing, but when he sings there seems to me to be a bit of hollowness to the vocals. I would think that would have more to do with the venue and/or mix than anything you did.
I HATE when the band encourages people to clap along! HAHAHAHAHA
-
If any one feels inclined, I'd welcome critique of a Keb' Mo' taping I did recently. This is my second taping effort, but my first of an amplified show. It's good enough that I'm enjoying listening to it (unlike my first taping), but I'm trying to educate my ear and develop my skills, so I'd appreciate hearing from more experienced people.
These were recorded at 24 bit / 44.1 Hz, but the samples I'm posting here were converted to .mp3. I used cardioid mics into an Edirol r09hr, no batt box, plug-in power. To me, the only thing I'm not liking across the board, is a kind of "hollow" sound, like I'm hearing the room too much, if that makes any kind of sense. I don't know just how to describe it. The venue is a big barn like structure, seats about 1500 I think. No climate control, so several large barn doors are left open and people sit outside and listen. It was raining hard through most of the show, but I didn't hear it there. Seats were not ideal: dead center, but about 3/4 of the way back. Fantastic show. He played almost 2.5 hours, never left the stage.
Here's two cuts from the first part. Cut and amplified with Audacity:
The Itch (http://puggocking.com/audio/KebMo/TheItch.mp3)
City Boy (http://puggocking.com/audio/KebMo/CityBoy.mp3)
Second part of the show, the guy next to me revealed himself to be a very persistan, loud and percussive clapper. My ears were ringing there, so I've tried to tone him down in post. Here's an example of that. I ran a click and pop filter and also did some selected compression to bring him into line with the other clappers. Not totally successful, but I'm not that adept with the editing yet, either.
Respect Yourself (http://puggocking.com/audio/KebMo/RespectYourself.mp3)
All and any advice is welcome, both for post for this show and for future recording. I'm recording same venue again in about a week, better seats and will try it with batt box next time. And I've got a show I really care about (different venue) coming up the end of September, so I'm trying to get some skills by then. Thanks!
Welcome, Boolz, thanks for sharing.
Yes,sounds exactly like a big barn with lots of doors left open should sound.I think your next effort (better seats, closer to the stage) will surprise you. You`re going to capture more of the direct sound than the room sound. It`s a never ending learning process.
The most important thing: have fun. ;D
-
boolz,
I think your recording sounds pretty good. It does have a somewhat hollow quality to it, but I think that is pretty much due to the venue acoustics and your location. You might be able to get better results from a better spot in the venue. I've been told that midway from the stage to the soundboard is generally good acoustically and sonically, but of course ymmv depending on the venue. Not the Wolf Trap is it?
-
It is very listenable. Do you remember if this is pretty much the way it sounded when you were taping? I've had shows that sounded strange, but I realized they were strange when I recorded. The instruments are very clear, but it sounds like the building you described.
MSTaper
-
Sure sounds like the venue is responsible for the hollow sound to me. Some hyper-cardioid mics might help for that room but I suspect that you were going low-profile and I don't know if anyone sells discrete hypers. Moving to a different spot might help as well.
-
Thanks for the props and input, guys. A couple of things:
- Not Wolftrap. This was an old wooden auditoreum built back in the 1800s. Basically a big octagonal barn.
- No taping allowed, so it has to be low key. Is there a technological reason why hypers aren't made for stealth, or is it just a coincidental state of the world?
- Yes, this is what it sounded like there. My first thought when the show started: sound kind of sucks on the vocals. But then, I got caught up in it and forgot about it.
- Next tape there will tell me alot. Similar kind of artist, much closer up.
A meta thing:
I'm interested in knowing what we mean when we say it sounds "hollow"? Acoustically, what are we talking about? Part of what's interesting about this new hobby is getting a handle on knowledge that I don't have a firm mental representation for. I assume that word popped into my head for this sound because of some other things I've heard like this in some environment which was, in some way, hollow. But what is it? No perception of sound direction, but rather sound coming as if it's bouncing off walls around? Something else? I'm finding this to be an odd cognitive state: having things I can, sort of, recognize but for which I don't much trust my vocabulary, and whose physical properties I don't know at all.
What it reminds me of is this: when I was little, I had a cat that made this one kind of miaow that I called a "round miaow". No clue why, it just seemed the right name - there was nothing round about what the cat was doing, but everyone knew which miaow that was. Many, many years later I learned that the kind of vowels I would have to use if I were imitating that sound were called "round vowels". So somehow, in trying to name that sound, I filtered it through my own production mechanism and landed on the same term that whoever came up with "round vowels" landed on. Logical, because we round our mouths to make them. But what it pointed out for me was how strange it was to have certain areas of knowledge for which we have fairly accessible mental representations, and others, like this acoustic knowledge, which we manipulate(I mean just as people, not tapers) without any obviously common representation.
-
- No taping allowed, so it has to be low key. Is there a technilogical reason why hypers aren't made for stealth, or is it just a coincidental state of the world?
Someone might make them but I haven't seen them if they do. One thought is that by being more directional, aiming them becomes more important but harder to do discretely.
I'm interested in knowing what we mean when we say it sounds "hollow"? Acoustically, what are we talking about? Part of what's interesting about this new hobby is getting a handle on knowledge that I don't have a firm mental representation for. I assume that word popped into my head for this sound because of some other things I've heard like this in some environment which was, in some way, hollow. But what is it? No perception of sound direction, but rather sound coming as if it's bouncing off walls around? Something else? I'm finding this to be an odd cognitive state: having things I can, sort of, recognize but for which I don't much trust my vocabulary, and whose physical properties I don't know at all.
I am no acoustics expert by any means but I have to wonder if you were in the right spot where the reverberated sound was canceling some of the sound direct from the PA. Since it isn't a perfect mirror image, some of the frequencies were attenuated, you end up with a sort of comb filtering going on. Just a guess, I'm sure somebody more knowledgeable will chime in. The reason it sounds better when you were sitting there is psycho-acoustics, your mind was compensating. That's normal.
I recorded two bands in a small old theater and it sounded great while I was there but I got the same "hollow" sound in the recording. One thing in that situation was that I was in the almost empty balcony next to the sound booth and they had supplemental PA speakers halfway between where I was and the stage aimed at the balcony. That probably had something to do with the sound I got. Those speakers may not have been properly placed. That stuff gets tricky.
-
Sounds good. You should be encouraged! Especially because you are thinking about the right things!
One thing that I think works in favor of this recording is that music which is sparse and 'open' sounding instead of being dense wall-of-sound type stuff can tolerate a lot more ambience and reverb. If this was a bass heavy, echoing rock show taped from the same location and situation it might sound too swamped and reverberant. Location is everything in recording. Sometimes you have some control over that and sometimes not. Equipment like mic choice can influence that somewhat, but changing location has much more influence and you can never completely get away from the sound of the room.
Is there a technilogical reason why hypers aren't made for stealth, or is it just a coincidental state of the world?
Many of the smaller mics we use for st3lth type recording were originally designed as lavalier mics for talking head, on-the-talent type use. Most of those are omnidirectional, because it is easier (and less expen$ive) to make a good, natural sounding omni mic than a directional one, because it's easier to place a non-directional mic on the talent without having to point it in a particular direction (which applies to our use too) and because when mounting the mic right on the source, its easier to get enough level of what you want without resorting to directional mics which introduce other compromises.
People do use hypercardioid mics for se3lth, but because they are technically harder to engineer, good sounding ones tend to be expensive. Using a mic that is considerably more directional also means you have to take more care to point it correctly and to keep it pointed correctly for the entire concert. Cardioids are a bit more forgiving in that aspect, omnidirectional mics even more so. Personally I tend to use omnidirectional mics and go to extra lenghts to get them where I want them because they just sound more natural to me. Cardioids and especially hypercardioid mics often sound 'funny' - closed in and weird in the bass, dull, or honky to my ears. [shrug] Other people make great recordings with them though.
- Yes, this is what it sounded like there. My first thought when the show started: sound kind of sucks on the vocals. But then, I got caught up in it and forgot about it.
The brain is an amazing, highly adaptable organ and the most important piece of recording equipment.
It constantly astounds me how we can mentally adjust to bad sound, how we can focus on one thing and ignore other sounds, and how the presence of other senses (especialy sight) can 'fill-in' to complete the experience. The incredible data processing center between our ears has a lot less information to work with when presented with a stereo recording than when present at the actual event. Your initial reaction when the show started is probably a more accurate objective assessment before your brain helped to 'fill-in-the-gaps' and reflects the fact that you are a very aware listener (Ignoring the fact that the sound guy also dials in the sound a bit over the first song or two). Listening back to the recording you are sort of stuck in that 'first impression' mode sound-wise by the primitive technology of stereo recording and playback. If you really think about it, it's actually rather amazing that such technology can be as convincing as it is.
- Next tape there will tell me alot. Similar kind of artist, much closer up.
Truth. The ONLY way to really learn (IMHO) is by experience. The feedback loop of tying something, listening, trying something else, listening again and making the comparison is the only way to really know, regardless of all the helpful suggestions and stuff you read. Those things are helpful and can speed the way, but they can't actually move your understanding forward.
A meta thing:
I'm interested in knowing what we mean when we say it sounds "hollow"? Acoustically, what are we talking about? Part of what's interesting about this new hobby is getting a handle on knowledge that I don't have a firm mental representation for. I assume that word popped into my head for this sound because of some other things I've heard like this in some environment which was, in some way, hollow. But what is it? No perception of sound direction, but rather sound coming as if it's bouncing off walls around? Something else? I'm finding this to be an odd cognitive state: having things I can, sort of, recognize but for which I don't much trust my vocabulary, and whose physical properties I don't know at all.
We all have a mental sound concept of 'hollow' and other labels for the qualities of what we hear which we develop though listening experience. In technical terms, what people ascribe to the quality of 'hollow' might be things like a certain reverberation time, a certain frequency response, stored energy resonating over time, etc. At some point the descriptive terms fall flat because 'hollow' can mean sounding like a rotted log, or sounding like a tin can, and we might not be talikng about the same 'hollow'. I know that through the experience of recording I've become much more attuned to sounds and which technical aspects correspond to my subjective experience of them. It's just being aware of what you are hearing and making the connection to the technical aspects and terms that relate to your experience.
What it reminds me of is this: when I was little, I had a cat that made this one kind of miaow that I called a "round miaow". No clue why, it just seemed the right name - there was nothing round about what the cat was doing, but everyone knew which miaow that was. Many, many years later I learned that the kind of vowels I would have to use if I were imitating that sound were called "round vowels". So somehow, in trying to name that sound, I filtered it through my own production mechanism and landed on the same term that whoever came up with "round vowels" landed on. Logical, because we round our mouths to make them. But what it pointed out for me was how strange it was to have certain areas of knowledge for which we have fairly accessible mental representations, and others, like this acoustic knowledge, which we manipulate(I mean just as people, not tapers) without any obviously common representation.
My take? A much as we like to think of ourselves as unique individuals (I certainly have a strong sense of individuality) we all are the same animal and are products of very common experiences. In reality, we all have much more in common than whatever we consider to be our own original ideas. Just as we are mostly unconscious of the influence of the time we live in and the culture that surrounds us, its rare that we realize that the way we think and the ideas we use are so contemporary and 'of our time' until we find out that people 200 years ago or in some far away culture (who both realistically share what, 80% or more of our experience and values?) thought about something so differently.
Sorry for all the words, but thanks for getting me thinking and rambling.
-
I HATE when the band encourages people to clap along! HAHAHAHAHA
We saw Tom Waits recently and after a few songs when people stated clapping along, he stopped mid-tune, and said-
"Now I can't come out there and stop each one of you, but if you're going to clap, you should really elect some kind of leader with some rhythmic ability or we'll suffer."
-Instant hero status if he hadn't achieved it already.
-
- Next tape there will tell me alot. Similar kind of artist, much closer up.
Truth. The ONLY way to really learn (IMHO) is by experience. The feedback loop of tying something, listening, trying something else, listening again and making the comparison is the only way to really know, regardless of all the helpful suggestions and stuff you read. Those things are helpful and can speed the way, but they can't actually move your understanding forward.
QFT! Plan carefully, then do it, then analyze the results. Make corrections the next time. Asking others and reading helps but you'll learn more by doing. And that's what boolz is doing so she's on the right track.
Just curious boolz, what make and model mics did you use? The recording is good, its just a recording with some weird acoustics. The sound was captured well, it just wasn't exactly the sound you wanted.
-
I HATE when the band encourages people to clap along! HAHAHAHAHA
We saw Tom Waits recently and after a few songs when people stated clapping along, he stopped mid-tune, and said-
"Now I can't come out there and stop each one of you, but if you're going to clap, you should really elect some kind of leader with some rhythmic ability or we'll suffer."
-Instant hero status if he hadn't achieved it already.
Second all that. What about the "come closer to the stage and dance with us"? Of course you are very close to the stage, prime location, and starts to get bumped and pushed, surrounded by dancers yelling like crazy etc. :banging head:
-
Just curious boolz, what make and model mics did you use? The recording is good, its just a recording with some weird acoustics. The sound was captured well, it just wasn't exactly the sound you wanted.
These are the mics: SP-CMC-22 (http://soundprofessionals.com/cgi-bin/gold/item/SP-CMC-22)
I've had some other reasons to be suspicious of them. After I've lived with them awhile, I may upgrade.
-
Just curious boolz, what make and model mics did you use? The recording is good, its just a recording with some weird acoustics. The sound was captured well, it just wasn't exactly the sound you wanted.
These are the mics: SP-CMC-22 (http://soundprofessionals.com/cgi-bin/gold/item/SP-CMC-22)
I've had some other reasons to be suspicious of them. After I've lived with them awhile, I may upgrade.
I've never used that particular model from Sound Professionals but I was very pleased with Chris Church's CA-14-cards (see the Retail Space on this forum). I only had his loaner pair for testing but they sounded great. I've got his CA-11 mics (both omni and card caps) and like them as well but the CA-14's are a step up. His CAFS-omni's sound great too and are extremely low profile. From what I've heard of other people's recordings, DPA makes some great low profile mics if you can afford them.
-
boolz...you appear to be from Colorado...you should join us in the Colorado Crue thread.
-
+T for taping Keb'
Like others have said...sounds like the venue and/or your position in it, had the effect on Keb's vocals. Still, it's quite nice.
Not familiar with the mic used, but I own both sp-cmc-8 and Church cards and have been happy with both, much more often than not.
-
- No taping allowed, so it has to be low key. Is there a technilogical reason why hypers aren't made for stealth, or is it just a coincidental state of the world?
Someone might make them but I haven't seen them if they do. One thought is that by being more directional, aiming them becomes more important but harder to do discretely.
AT853 with hyper caps is a decent budget option, although bass response is a bit lower than the other caps (dropping off at 80Hz, I read here on TS somewhere). But like cybergaloot and gutbucket also pointed out, aiming hypers require a lot of attention, which you might not be able to give in a st3alth situation.
As far as the technological explanation, my understanding is that it's tricky to manufacture a tiny hyper capsule that will be able to disregard/filter all off-axis sound, while still achieving full frequency response on-axis. From a manufacturing point of view, the larger the mic, the easier it is to "focus/concentrate" the pick-up to the on-axis area. The large shotgun mics commonly mounted on pro video cameras is one example...
-
Closing the loop. I got a chance to record in this same venue, this time about 30 ft from the stage. Joan Osborne and John Hiatt each did a one hour set. I've not heard the whole thing back yet because I'm having some annoying crashes with Audacity for some reason. So I just cut the encores.
Osborne's encore:
Make You Feel My Love (http://puggocking.com/audio/Hiatt-Osborne/Make-You-Feel-My-Love.mp3)
Hiatt's encores:
Riding With the King (http://puggocking.com/audio/Hiatt-Osborne/Riding-King.mp3)
Have a Little Faith in Me (http://puggocking.com/audio/Hiatt-Osborne/Have-Faith.mp3)
On site, I felt there was less of the hollowness(but still some), but mainly that the mix wasn't great - frequently the vocals were lost. This was particularly true for Hiatt's set, which also seemed too loud. Not uncomfortably so, but like it maxed out something that shouldn't be maxed out - something was lost, but I'm not sure what. A friend, who was there but doesn't know I'm taping, also mentioned the same thing. I'm thinking I'll hit this place when I really want to the hear the artist, but when I can, try to catch them elsewhere. On the good side, audience was cool this time.
-
Sounds good boolz (even listening on crappy computer speakers right now).
A couple comments relating to what you mentioned about the 'hollowness' and the vocals-
Having lived our whole lives being intimately familiar with the human voice, we tend to be more critical listeners to vocals than other instruments. Also consider the ability of some sounds and instruments to be able to stand more echo and reverb than others and still be perceived as natural sounding. A third related factor is the ability of more open arrangements to sound good with an amount of echo or reverb that would swamp a dense arrangement. For instance-
In the Keb'Mo samples the ambience on the instruments sounds nice to me here at the computer, conveying an open, big-room, live feeling of space while still sounding clear. It's the vocal where I notice the echoing 'hollow' sound a bit more (which is also effecting the instruments of course), not enough to be bad, but more than you'd like I'd guess. If the arrangement was denser everything might get swamped more.
In the Hiatt 'Have Faith' clip I can hear less echo on the vocals so they sound clearer, but the open arrangement still sounds good and live. On the 'Riding' clip the arrangement is denser and though not objectionable, the instruments start to get blurred a bit in the long reverb time.
It all comes down to the sound you like and what you are happy with. I like hearing the ambience in a live recording, but I still want clarity, presence and definition too. There's a balance to be struck. Sometimes in a bad room you just have to get relatively close to one of the speaker stacks where the level and clarity of the direct sound is strong enough to make the room sound less objectionable, even if that places you way off center. Often there is a bit of a vocal hole in the center of the floor up close to the stage. Proximity to a speaker will almost certainly make the vocal clearer and will work better in an echoy room for denser music than heard in your samples. You might try that next time you record at this place and compare. Even if you are close to one speaker you can still get a nice stereo sounding recording with good room ambience. Most big sound systems are in mono anyway.
-
Thanks, GB. That all makes sense. Overall, I like the Keb' Mo' recording better for the reasons you mention. While not perfect by any means, I can live with the vocal being slightly off as trade-off for clearer instrumentals. And, apart from all recording considerations, I generally like the instrumentation to be sparse enough that I can hear the nuances of the individual performances as part of the whole. In any case, I really appreciate your thoughtful comments on this. It's interesting stuff to think about, in and around hearing some great music.
-
I'm right with you on the general preference for sparse, open instrumentation, boolz. I love hearing into and around the music. Sometimes the most important part of the music is the space between the notes. It seems to me that much like musicianship, listening is the most important skill in recording. Come to think of it, listening is probably the most important skill of most things. The love of really listening, the music and thinking about all this is a big part of what got me into recording. Its a way for me to get deeper into the sound and the music and develop an understanding of what's going on - and adds to my enjoyment of the music in ways that not many people are attuned to. Thanks for sharing.